Twitter Will Allow Employees to Work at Home Forever
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
Remote work takes all of it away and adds this invisible burden to navigate through your teams thought process. That alone is a huge factor for me to make sure there is a balance between remote work and office visits.
But having 2 people work from home increases your required footprint and yet you live in the same area as before. If i need an additional 20sqm in or near London, that is going to be expensive.
OK for a day or so a week. But that's a huge chunk out of your day if it's a daily thing.
Since I had no options to work in an office - I didn't have one - I decided to start working in a co-working space.
The co-working space cost me money I would otherwise not have spent but the impact on my mental health was great. I got a regular group of "colleagues" and it clearly divided my home life and work life.
I would definitely recommend it once we're all out of lockdown.
I'm optimistic about a "work wherever works for you" future. That might mean the company's office, or your home office, or your living room couch, or a coworking space, or a beach, or your parents' house, or a friend's place. It might mean all of those at different times. The current situation has made it clear that remote work is pretty viable, but it's destroyed the element of choice that is so important to mental health for many people.
I, on the other hand, get a lot more focus time here, at home, than in the office. Every little 'ding' sound, every little 'hey, when did you get home last night' conversation, every time someone turns on or off the lights, all of that and much more just rips me out of my concentration.
I've been able to focus _a lot_ more from home. It's good for me to realize this as well.
Feel free to stay in the office when you're finally able to, and I'll work towards staying at home, if I'm able to. That way, we're both happy.
EDIT: I didn't really drive my point home. It's not the friendly face that bothers me, in fact if it was a friendly face then it would hurt me less. But it still hurts regardless.
https://heeris.id.au/trinkets/ProgrammerInterrupted.png
This for me is why WFH suits me so well. In my morning I get around 4 hours of pure uninterrupted coding (as long as I stay off here or reddit).
Sounds more sane that forcing an office environment, where I understand that everyone wants to socialise, but why spent more hours for work than necessary?
When using async communication the person can wait until they’re out of the flow and respond. This is one of the great things about email, and the worst thing about Slack.
But I can definitely see how people who didn't grow up on freenode et al might come in with different expectations around Slack responsiveness.
WFH without a choice to come to office is pure suffering. I really miss the interactions with my coworkers before COVID. I also miss time I can grab a book from the shared book-self and find an empty office and just do reading for one hour.
If I have a choice to go back to office, I will take it anytime.
I mean, like being under rubble in Battery Park after 9-11, waiting 3 days for the people to dig you out as your batteries die is stressful, but that's not really the same as hiding from a virus that won't kill you, is it?
EDIT: Re-reading my comment, that 2nd paragraph sounds snarky. It wasn't intended to be. I guess I just don't understand your comment. Would you be kind enough to clarify my mind? :-)
supposing that's not a concern, and you're not emotionally impacted by the possibility of hundreds of thousands of additional deaths from this, most folks will be stressed out by having their routines disrupted.
so now multiply that stuff happening to you, by a factor of it happening to your boss and all of your coworkers, and now everything else is just a bit tougher.
Please, if you need help, there is the PTSD hotline for people who are having problems dealing with this new-new situation we are going through: 1-800-985-5990
But now, she works from home and then can't socialize after hours, except virtually. She can't go anywhere or do anything. Shopping is the only time she gets out, but she didn't like it before and now it's even more stressful.
The difference (unless you have kids or a noisy house) isn't the home bit, it's the not-home bit. For people who aren't introverts, this is a very, very tough time. Their basic needs aren't being met.
I'm lucky that I'm an introvert. This has been a pretty good experience for me. I have no commute, I get more done in the same 8 hours, and all my socializing can be done in my own home. I miss going places a tiny bit, but only the places that have things I can't do at home. (I'm talking Disney World here.)
Also some people have kids at home because schools are closed; my SO for instance is also at home, while usually she's not, and the apartment is not bigger now that we're two; sometimes I need to go to the grocery at specific time because otherwise is crowded...
And even worse, as other comment mentioned, some people would have sick family and / or friends.
There are many things that make this situation different than a "regular day working from home".
EDIT:
You said: "I'm more worried for several other things than work and I cannot be as productive as I was before."
This makes sense - I have some acquaintances who have parents locked up in long-term care facilities that they haven't seen since February - and this is taxing both the parents and the kids/grandkids that can't see them.
You (also)said: "There are many things that make this situation different than a "regular day working from home"."
You bring up several good points. I was focused on the "working from home" part, I've actually been more concerned about the funemployment people, for which I do food-bank work (Whole Foods, HEB (it's a grocery store in Texas) and Bank of America (who would have thunk?) have all been very very generous), but there are other "factions" of people with other concerns that my brain was kind of glossing over somehow.
I already said "Thank You", but I really do appreciate your clarification. It broke open some blocked thinking pathways for me.
- I chose a co-working space that was more aligned to the type of person I am in terms of the people there, style, philosophy, etc.
- I've met a lot of people from outside my industry which I quite enjoy.
- I get to socialize with people I don't work with, so conversations are not about work gossip which is also great.
- There's tons of activities organised in the space. Work/career talks, informal art talks, hikes, beer fridays, concerts, food sharing, etc.
- It's a 5min walk from my house.
Of course, this is all covid-pending.
It sounds as if you are like one of my sons.
I miss the "buzz" of human interaction that TV in the background never gives, but I can usually get that from Starbucks.
I'm an introvert, and I've been doing independent consulting over the phone for clients for, gosh, 7-or-so years now, and I love talking to my clients, but I don't want to be in the office with them.
One of my sons is about to go bat-shit crazy. The other loves his ability to get tasks in the morning and focus.
I guess we are all wired different.
I was in the process of putting together a "Remote First" business plan, for my next venture, where -- there simply was no home office.
But reading comments like yours really brings home how bad an idea that might be, because I'd be losing out on incredible talent by doing so.
BTW: My current main client has an office (mostly shut down), but I've made it a point to take out a different engineer for lunch (of something similar, depending on the lockdown harshness), 3 times a week (we're small, so I tend to take out everybody for lunch, including my boss) about every six weeks. That's not enough ... but it's the little things that make you feel connected, right? We had a young (28 y.o.?) superstar that was about to lose his shorts release week about two weeks ago and simply bringing to my place with pizze and Netflix and Nintendo (we got shitfaced and he beat my ass at Super Mario Cart), it was good. He felt better, I felt better, nobody got laid, and we both woke up refreshed...
I think you have a solid point that people need people. But, my question is: Can this be done virtually?
I'm a USian, but I lived in Japan for over 10 years, and my mother always wanted to see me, but I never understood why, when I could read her voice better over the phone than in person. She wanted to see me because she could read my body language better in person than over the phone (which I did not like, actually), but is there a way via which you can feel connected without being in the same room? My girlfriend (I live in Texas) is in Taiwan and we have pretty engaging conversations every day and she comes to see me (or vice versa) about 10 times/year. Would that kind of work satisfy you, or do you literally need to see people every day? (As an introvert, I guess I don't know how extraverts work).
Anyway - A bit more disclosure than I usually do - but I am sincerely interested in your perspective.
It sounds like there is a choice so hopefully this is a temporary situation for you.
But with the whole office working remotely, virtual hang out sessions, asynchronous communications, everyone joining remotely for office updates etc etc. I hate to admit it but I quite enjoy it now. I feel more productive. If a company sets up the right culture for remote work, it's not that bad.
Are you young, single, and live in an apartment? I have noticed a divide along those lines with WFH. As an older, married person, living in a house with a yard, I haven't worked in an office for any length of time for last 10 years.
None of my close friends are related to work. I like having lunch with my wife and going out back with the dogs when I need a break. I also have an actual office with a door in my house. The time I save commuting means there is more time to workout and cook healthy meals every day. And, if I really want to 'get out' the local coffee shop is 5 minutes away. The owner and her 2 employees are awesome along with great coffee and great internet.
Of course I may think differently if I was back in my 600 sqft apartment and single with few friends.
Infant = stressed, but manageable
Toddler = worst case scenario
Young child = second worst case scenario
Teen = enjoyable
I'm lucky that my software job is mostly conducive to this...
Brutal doesn’t begin to describe it.
This tends to work very well for about 30 minutes, and then they're in a fight.
... the list goes on and on.
It is not surprising that you will have every variation of the above. But my guess is that for the majority of the people, once they setup a proper home office, the would likely find working from home to be somewhere in the "mildly positive" to "really positive" side of things. Even if some disagree with that, at the very least, I imagine that most would agree that they would like to have the _option_ to work from home whenever they choose.
Not parent comment, but yes.
However, I do have friends outside of work. Obviously right now I'm rarely if ever seeing them, and certainly not all. Very occasionally we decide on a small coffee shop to go support at the same time and talk from a couple car spaces away for a few minutes just to engage in some kind of social behavior. It helps momentarily, but not consistently.
Going to work and making friends there, while not "IRL" friends, really helps work become a more fluid environment where you don't need to stress out all the time on structure. It gives breathing room. Some jokes lighten the mood. I personally feel like it's easier to discuss important topics when I have "friends" on my team or other teams who have a respect for my train of thought.
Also, while I do have a desk and monitor now, I work in the same room as my entertainment space (living room). So I'm literally in the same room all day. And no, I don't want to setup a workspace in my bedroom, that'd be even worse.
If I had a dedicated office room that'd be nice. If I had a more normal house where I had space to walk between areas like the kitchen, dining room/area, living room that would help.
But I do not.
You have the life I want.
Do you perhaps live alone in a small apartment? I can see how working from home could be tough on a situation like that. I live with my family, in a house, with a garden, and I absolute abhor the idea of resuming a daily commute. I hate our office, and I love my home.
I am definitely no “social butterfly”, though.
During the middle of a worldwide lockdown? The only explanation I can imagine is a substantial decrease in operating costs due to disuse, but that doesn't strike me as enough to offset the cost of rent.
What am I missing here?
I just gave their topline reported results.
EDIT: https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/office/wework-says-its-...
I've seen some people predict that a surge in home buying may follow the pandemic because people will realize how much better off they would have been in a larger space.
I will go ahead and move into a 2 bedroom in the next few months to allow me to have a more private office space.
I'm worried that mixing my work and personal life too much will be a big strain on my mental health, but I plan to work at home as little as possible in the future, while still trying to work remote to avoid having to commute and enjoy a more flexible schedule. I hope this idea will help you!
I feel very bad for my kids as all they want is to be able to play with their friends and do all the things they could before so I do my very best to not show them my frustration. Its a depressing situation all around but I am very grateful to actually still have a job while so many others have lost theirs. My kids ask me why I have to work so much all the time, as all they want to do is spend time with me.
I guess what I am trying to say is the current situation is not optimal.
I haven't figured out how to be as productive as night as I would be in the morning, which used to be my best hours.
I suspect it's unusual that my boss actually said that out loud, but I hope everyone is thinking it. This is a temporary situation none of us planned for, and it ought to be reasonable and expected to lower your standards until schools and childcare are around again.
Basecamp's founders have been working hard to hammer this point (lower expectations and treat humans like humans) home lately.
I've actually been impressed at the amount of empathy that's been going around, at least when it comes to adjusting expectations. Hopefully it sticks around.
I lead one of our teams and that's pretty much the explicit directions my VP gave us. Actually, the entire leadership team gave those directions. It's made me glad I switched jobs 18 months ago.
Somehow I'm the only one on our team with kids but some of my team has had a difficult time managing the change from an emotional standpoint and I just treat it the same way. I don't expect them to somehow magically "power through it". They're normally very productive and I know this will pass.
We had an all-hands and one of the questions was "are we expected to do our contractual hours" and the answer was to do what you can.
Honestly very impressed by how they are handling this, at every turn they repeat that they understand that everyone's situation is different.
I appreciate the sentiment, but five hours?! That's your example of an acceptable low level of performance for someone working from home with a child with no possibility of childcare?
I'm splitting card of my toddler with my spouse, and on my BEST days, I get 3 hours of actual work done. 1.5 is more typical, and that's only because the toddler takes 2 hour naps.
The other problem is the confusion of what day it is and that since I got not much work done during the weekdays I also work at the weekend, which before was a complete no-no. Over the long term, this lack of time off for them and me probably is not good.
Having work and home contexts now collapsed into single environment has had the surprising effect where each interaction with the family during my work day triggers the subconscious thought of whether I just made a tradeoff between work and home -- and if so, was it the right one. In isolation the amount of energy each thought takes is negligible, but add up each interaction throughout the day, and day after day, it's been incredibly draining.
I dunno, my thoughts change daily on this topic. But this is my venting of for whatever day it is. usually I type these replies and never submit, but cathartic, if nothing else, to vent and post this one today.
p.s. agree, while not optional, still incredibly grateful to still have a job.
Note: I thought I had it bad with my office, that has no door, but you have me beat pretty handily.
I think it is time for a lot of people for a relocation to somewhere with better-larger living arrangements, and better access to childcare (private or public).
And it also should give rise to gig economy around private tutors/babysitters/nannys - which is very useful, and actually could be fun for a lot of people.
I for one expect lower productivity from my staff whether or not they have kids, and am adjusting delivery dates to account for this.
Remote work means you can work wherever you want, you can go to a coffee shop for a few hours, you can head to your town’s local library, a coworking space. You can take an extended trip and live out of a van.
Once starlink is up, if you can get away with high latency, you can work from the middle of Greenland if you wanted to.
Working from home, which is really working from wherever you want, is about the flexibility and control to work how, when and where you want.
I do hope that large tech companies like twitter leave their offices open, because that’s also a piece of the remote work puzzle. Just like when we switched from cubicles to open offices, it would be nice to be more thoughtful about remote work AND an in office hybrid situation.
Off topic but, the latency will be better than cable. They're low altitude satellites. There was even talk of using Starlink for New York / London HFT, because signals travel faster in space than they do in fiber optic (some fraction of the speed of light).
I would be cautious about overfitting too much to this exact scenario though. Normally even if you were working from home, you could still have a very active social life, get lunch with nearby friends who also work from home, do activities after work, go out on the weekends, etc. I know people that are extroverted and have really enjoyed working from home.
And even if it's really not for you, as other comments have pointed out, there will still certainly be co-located workplaces in the future. Even if almost every company were to go remote, you're definitely not the only one that likes being around other people and I'm sure companies will accomodate this (whether it's a small optional company office, or paying for employees to use a co-working space like a We Work, etc.)
I invite you now to consider that a much milder version of these is what introverts deal with almost all the time due to the norms of society (which are biased toward social butterflies). We have to learn to overcome and adapt to these difficulties early in life, and for some of us that struggle is real (and life-long).
I ranted about this today [1]. For many the separation of home and office is healthy. Different people, different social interactions, etc.
And for many, an office is where they make new friends, meet their partner etc.
I've been working from home for about 2 years, a legacy consequence of a few acquisitions. Despite its perks, I don't think that I would've stayed with it past the first year if not for 1) a local set of friends that I could still take breaks / lunches with 2) going to the corporate office once a month for about a week which allowed me to form a nice social network in the mothership city.
But covid-19 stopped both, and I'm stuck with this ennui that's been hard to shake.
I hated daily standups, where every morning we have to justify our existence and repeat what's already on the Jira board to some product manager who for whatever reason isn't obliged to give us their status update. I hated all the other numerous pointless agile meetings - backlog refinement, backlog grooming (once got accused of not appearing attentive enough in meetings). I hate open offices, where you have no privacy, have to listen to other peoples' conversations, and constantly feel like you're being watched and paranoid that somebody might catch a glance at your monitor the second you took a 5 minute break from work. I hate having to be surrounded by boring co-workers with no personality all day, in offices where most people eat alone at their desks in front of their computer screens (I never understood this, are people actually working when they eat in front of their computer monitors? You're sitting there for 8 hours and you're so busy you can't take 30 minutes to eat your lunch without being glued to the screen?)
I've been working remotely since last year and I am significantly happier. 98% of that "office bullsh!t" vanished overnight. No commuting. No daily standups. Less pointless meetings (it's like remote workers don't need meetings to bullsh!t meetings to rationalize being stuck in an office for 8 hours). I've traveled the world. At ~$200k/yr I make less than I would in SF, but it's a very comfortable living practically anywhere else in the world since my expenses are a fraction what they were before, and I don't need to be locked in to a lease. When it's 2pm and I'm not feeling productive, I just close my laptop and do something else (instead of trying to figure out how to blow the next 3 hours at the office). When I need to go to the grocery store or gym, I go. If I want to spend a month in Hawaii, I do it.
Remote work certainly has its challenges - you need to be disciplined, have a comfortable workspace ideally separate from your home so you're not stuck in the same place all day (I like coffee shops), do other activities that get you outside the harm (a little more difficult now with COVID), you can't just walk over to someone's desk so people need to be available (not necessarily on a second's notice, but within some acceptable range such that time isn't wasted being blocked), and you have to know when to turn off and go offline. You can't rely on co-workers for your social life anymore, though I don't think I ever had more than 2-3 real friends at any office job in terms of anyone I still keep in contact with.
So it's funny to me seeing occasional comments on remote work posts talking about how much they like working in an office. Personally offices have always been the bane of my existence, and there are few thoughts more repulsing then being trapped in some office for 8 hours/day. To be fair I once worked out of the office of a company I was working remotely for and really enjoyed it because it was a tiny startup with cool people who didn't care when or what time I showed up since I had been hired on purely remote terms and was only at the office voluntarily. So the problem is not the office itself, but the idea of being locked inside for designated hours, and the other bullsh!t management practices generally prevalent in office jobs especially at bigger companies.
In sum, the social aspect really is the worst part of engineering in Silicon Valley, and I have half a mind to do something on my own so I no longer have to entertain mediocre engineers with terrible interests.
So, I would love to work for a place that was fully remote. It would be paradise to me.
Part of the reason this happens is because every task is estimated and timed. Over time the estimates have become fairly accurate so you can't get away with dossing the whole day.
I'm also a very social person, but my non-work time is my social outlet (though I still get some "lower-quality" social time over Slack and Zoom during work hours). When the company was smaller (a couple hundred people, now we're over 3k), I certainly spent more social time at the office. But these days I prefer to just work hard during work hours, and meet up with friends (who are often also co-workers) after work.
But at the same time, I love that working at home gives me the flexibility to cook lunch with my girlfriend or take a break for a walk or even just stare out the window in the middle of the afternoon. While my commute isn't bad (25 min transit ride or 45 min walk), I don't mind getting that time back, either. Instead I can get up and go for a 30 minute run, and start work at the same time.
So the COVID rules have left me in roughly the same situation as I was before, at least work-wise (I miss seeing my friends like crazy). Fortunately I don't have kids; nearly everyone I know with kids is finding it impossible to juggle them being home all the time with getting their work done.
It's really interesting though to see how this sort of thing affects people differently (and I'm genuinely sorry you're having such a bad time!). I expect the incidence of work-from-home will increase a lot even after we've stopped social distancing, but there will still be a strong (but newly-flexible) office culture.
But with FOMA out of the way - I'm happy as larry staying in and having those same conversations selectively and remotely.
I still have some friends at work, but to be honest: I never really did well with random people, usually those that I consider friends I chose since we have similar interests/vibe/philosophy.
I think the best case (for me personally) is both... 2-3 days per week from the office, and 3-2 days from home. You talk with people, socialize, hear all the gossip (from non-work related, to work related - eg. aout someone who's working on some interesting new project, etc.), but still don't have to drive to work 3 times a week, and can work in your underwear.
I expect other tech giants will follow suit.
Those who previously can't afford or don't want to live in big cities like NYC/Seattle/SF because they are older, have families, or various other reasons now are included in the candidate pool.
This can go two ways: either the local software business will have to compete with FAANG salaries, or there will be jumps from senior developers, experienced developers, and many smarter/more capable developers from smaller software business to FAANG due to salary/perks attraction. Whatever the case is, suddenly fresh graduates, mid level developers, senior developers, are now competing on the same pool. It is getting even more real to compete in the high FAANG salary job openings now.
This serves as a reminder for us, whether fresh graduates, mid level, or even seniors, to always to keep your edge. DS&A grinding, system design, etc, do whatever you can to not lose your edge.
As a matter of fact, I think almost all knowledge workers will find themselves in this situation. If you are a knowledge/office worker, huge competition looms over the horizon. Never lose your edge.
Working remotely from another country is easy. Paying somebody in another country is not easy at all. Even with specialized providers it is a substantial hassle. Without it you pretty much better give up - the chances you get all the payments, taxes and paperwork right is minimal, and that country's tax/regulatory authorities would be more than happy to fine you and/or your workers if you don't. In the best case, in worse case they might just seize your money intended for payroll and keep it until you figure things out.
(I know it's not quite that simple, but I think it's interesting to think about.)
One you exchange the money - where an advantage can be gained - then it can be considered a sale and thus taxed. A sale does not necessarily need to be towards consumption.
But, if such a system was in place, the money would be taxed during the purchase of the investment vehicle. A sale is a sale. Unless the money is literally stuck in a mattress, it is going to be taxed upon doing anything useful with it. If it is simply stuck in a mattress for all of eternity, one is really no further ahead. Money only has value when you can use it to facilitate a sale; and when there is a sale there would be a tax.
In point of fact, the US mortgage interest deduction is highly regressive. It favors those who can afford a down payment on a house over those who can't, who by definition will be poorer.
If the sales tax applied to buying a house, it would be quite progressive. It could even only apply to the cost of the house less some amount (say, $100k) which would make it even more progressive.
- Some anti-WFH person, probably
There are downsides to working from home, it's silly to dismiss them as mindlessness from the other camp.
In a remote-first culture, those meetings still happen, even though it needs some more effort to facilitate those situations. It's when the team is split between onsite and remote that remote contributors have a disadvantage and might even miss out on important things going on.
I wonder how that effect virtualizes.
I think if it's widespread it would be a little of both with some extra effects to consider. Not only will FAANG organizations get a wider pool of applicants which will drive down salaries for FAANG orgs, AND other businesses will how have to deal with the fact that their technology workers are part of a much larger market than they were previously, which will drive up salaries for those workers remotes, but there could be some very interesting delayed effects. How many FAANG workers now would opt to move farther away and keep their position, which will depress (that is, realign with reality to some small degree) the real estate market in areas like Seattle and San Francisco? What does that do to salaries later (likely a much smaller effect, but maybe non-negligible)?
Telecommuting has been hailed as one aspect of saving the suburban and rural life for a long time. Maybe we'll actually see some of it now.
What happens if there's a net reduction in people living in San Francisco and surrounds over 10 years, say 10%? I mean, it sounds unlikely, but so didthe idea of so many people staying inside for months at a time, and everyone switching to telecommuting so fast. All these things are related, and with major changes in one, relatively rapid change in things that related to it can be expected. At this point I'm actually thinking it's possible we could shift to UBI of some sort, and just a few months ago I didn't see any way that could happen without a major economic disruption, but hey, we've already got that.
Rural California is also pretty red and not as friendly to outsiders. I have a friend who grew up on the rural coast. He basically drove around on trails and shot guns for fun.
If that’s your thing more power to you but most tech workers I’ve met aren’t into that.
If anything, if the twitter trend follows, FAANG salaries will lose heat. For the majority of the employees, a good chunk of the paycheck goes to housing costs. Wider WFH adoption will ease the overly localized housing demand, even with several days of WFO, longer commutes will be much more tolerable and the housing spread will increase. That would mean acceptance of lower salaries and lowering of housing costs over time.
One competing factor; as the seniority increases, the say on WFH policies increases, also the possibility of housing ownership increases (whether as primary residence or also with rental properties). That creates a perverse incentive to not let people go away in aggregate. Not saying individual managers will think this way explicitly, but might have an indirect influence.
Edit:
- Previously I stated 22k as H1B + green card numbers. In reality 22k was H1B only and 6k was green card. Source: https://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Google/225093.htm
I do agree that this expectation that one sitting in Ohio will command the same salary working for a FAANG company is just wrong. Very likely, the companies will adjust their salaries based on where the person is.
Is your employer really going to decrease your salary after the fact? Can you file taxes in your lower cost of living state after you lock in your high SF comp package and never notify your employer but still pay your taxes in the state you moved back to?
Note: I don't condone illegal behavior just thinking of edge cases that benefit us tech workers.
While I certainly don’t think it’s ethical to do so, I did wonder the same thing - would companies start putting measures in place to verify you’re working from the same general area as your initially provided address? Eg, sifting through VPN log files to geo locate IP addresses etc.
What's stopping people is largely that
a.) if you aren't in the office, you miss out on critical opportunities, and if you aren't in the office too much, your boss may decide you're not worth keeping. (Officially, Google has a "if you don't show up for 3 days in a row without telling anyone you're considered to have voluntarily resigned". Unofficially this gets bent by high-performers all the time, but legally they can do it.) This is also why ambitious people at the satellite offices - NYC, Pittsburg, Seattle - move to Mountain View, because the high-priority projects require facetime and rarely go to remote employees.
b.) Hopping on a plane to make a meeting gets old really quickly, and also pretty expensive if you aren't pre-IPO. I know people who would commute from LA -> MTV, Uganda -> MTV, Seattle -> MTV, or do frequent business trips from Zurich or Sydney -> MTV. They hated it. You think the commute on 101 sucks, try adding the TSA to it.
The other companies, who pay on value of output, will agree with that statement. As far as I know, most companies fall under cost of life approach rather than value of output.
I think most companies fall under "what's the minimum we can get away with?"
>what is needed to retain employees and keep churn rates down to acceptable rates
Ultimately, this value depends on the location. Assuming identical salaries, it is more expensive to retain someone for 5 years in NY than in Nebraska, because the person in Nebraska making $200k+ lives like royalty, and whereas NY would be a different story.
If you introduce any amount of latency by executing the encoder/decoder pair, you'll have to subtract double the latency from your ping-allowance.
If you try to have correctly-lipsynced audio in a video call, I only know of one setup to offer similarly-low video latency: a rolling-shutter in the camera, a line-by-line display (CRT should do well), and up-to a few lines algorithmic delay for e.g. running non-buffering JPEG (8x8 DCT and an online entropy coder (no pre-analysis for optimal Huffman tables or such) to save like 80-90% bandwidth). Analog TV camera+screen hardware should also work, but it's really inefficient and not easy to emulate with digital hardware.
Falsifying this, to my knowledge, is not only a bad idea, but could easily be a termination-level offense and could be illegal.
Good luck with all of that.
That said there’s probably a bunch of laws around faking residency for tax purposes which id imagine has some hefty consequences.
Google pays for cost of labor, not cost of living. While related, it isn't the same: for example, Google London pays much less than NYC, and Tokyo even less than that; yet Pittsburgh pays only slightly less than NYC despite being far and away the cheapest of the 4.
I believe Google's competitors tend to follow this model more than cost of living, especially internationally.
I also conveniently assumed that global 40k headcount increase was sufficiently representative of the US headcount increase, even though it inflates the denominator. It's the nature of back-of-the-envelope calculations to be convenient.
This is really only true for certain segments of the population. In my early to mid 20s, I moved cross country numerous times. Now I hope I never have to move again. And if I did, it wouldn't be to the Bay Area or Seattle.
So I'm not sure your statement that "more than half of new employers[sic] are supplied internationally" is true, because the H-1B numbers include renewals.
I went studied CS in Idaho and know many of my peers took significantly lower paying jobs than they are qualified for so they could remain in the area. I'm certain at least some of them would rather work for larger companies with higher salaries and better benefits (and more prestige), if it didn't mean moving into the BIG CITY and leaving their friends/family behind.
In reality, it's probably a mix of both.
For your second point, the delta of the “higher salary” is important. US ranks the highest in sofware engineer salaries globally, which means for most countries coming to US as a software engineer will mean a much higher increase in salary than within US. If that delta offsets the perceived cost of leaving friends and family behind, they it is rational to take the offer. In other words, non-US candidates need to be hurting much more than US candidates to lose access to friends and family to not take the offer. In fact they already do, they lose access to their culture and their language unless they are from anglosphere. They still take the offers, so the income differential must be more than adequate to make the transition. Additionally, individual cost function of losing access to these things will differ. Many people will actively seek a challenge away from their friends and families to take up new opportunities and experiences. Your friends seems to have not.
Thanks for your detailed response, though. I understand what you're saying more clearly.
If they aren’t wage fixing!
For out-of-US hires, Facebook will actually get you a Canadian work visa, and have you work in Canada for the 7 month wait, and potentially for year if you don't get picked in the lottery. The strategy for multiple large firms is to bring non-US workers to Canada first, and then try to move them over to the US, since US immigration law is extraordinarily restrictive compared to most countries.
[1] The company applies for the worker in March of the year, and if the individual is picked in the lottery, they get to start working for them in October.
For now, most big companies have enough cash and are primarily focusing on making sure workers are not going crazy rather than on turning out new software. Give it another 3-4 months though and those companies will have to pivot back to real development which may be harder than they expect if WFH is still practiced en masse. My 2c.
This does not work with remote teams. There, a manager needs to have a longer-term plan, parcel work in a larger chunks, clearly write the tasks and minimal thresholds ("this task is done when you can confirm X"). The manager then sees when someone is blocked, what tasks are getting behind, etc.
This setup is actually better for the worker bees, too, who get clearly identifiable tasks and are not tracked on how they spend their time as long as their task is completed on time.
They said local companies will have to compete with FANG salaries. To your point these would likely be cost of living adjusted, but would almost certainly be higher than the current average in most Midwestern cities.
Not every online conversation has to be a fight with winners and losers.
To put it another way, do you currently see pay adjustments based on housing costs for employees living in SF? Have you ever heard of differences across employees simply because one of them has a more expensive house?
Dude in Indiana doesn't have that opportunity. You'd say but Internet, but things like motivation, inspiration, innovation comes from a certain external factors (which we still haven't figured out).
That's why even with massive internet penetration, it's the tech hubs that keep pumping winners and hits
Yes, it's commonly referred to as "cost of living adjustment."
The rational basis is that the employer sees strategic value in having a physical presence in a given locale, and are willing to pay a premium to have employees actually located there.
Note that I've been working remotely full-time for years, and never plan to go back. I am, however, under no illusions that my salary is a permanent thing.
I think you missed the point I was making. Have you seen two employees living in the same city, with one paid more because he decided to buy a more expensive house?
I'm aware that there are regional differences, but they can be explained by factors like different productivity levels. This discussion is different - it's about the same employee living in two different locations.
Strange reply. I'm not talking about injustices. I'm saying a company would be pretty dumb to pay someone more just because of where they chose to live. Profit maximization and all that.
You should ask yourself: do I want to hire people who decide relocating to Silicon Valley would be good for their career, or those who can't or won't?
Google made $65 billion in 2014[0], and had ~20k engineers[1], which puts the number per engineer at $3.5 million. [0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/reve... [1]https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-does-Googl...
That's only the case if skilled engineers are fungible entities with a smooth supply/demand curve. That is absolutely not the case.
There are plenty of tech companies paying great salaries in the bay because they have to, otherwise they would just go work for someone else. On the other hand, if you lived in Oklahoma you aren't going to say no to $LOCAL_OFFER+10k just because bay area salaries are $LOCAL_OFFER+90k.
As long as this disparity exists, I forsee bay area salaries and CoL still being high. Until companies move headquarters out of the bay, the trend will continue.
There is no rational reason for Google to pay bay area salaries for Indiana employees - will they really say no if Google offers 300K instead of the 500K they would get in the bay area? Sure, the person could reject it to make a statement, but most people would gladly take a salary that would buy them a small castle.
All FAANG needs to do is to beat local salaries by a significant margin to get well qualified employees - that would still make these people WAY cheaper than bay area employees.
Yep, that's exactly what a Google recruiter told me - they try to pay at the upper end of the _local_ market.
For example, my paycheck literally has withholdings for California every two weeks.
The argument is that people in lower cost-of-living areas are willing to work for less, a public company's main motivation is profit, and companies lower their profit by paying employees more than is required to hire and retain them.
I'm not claiming they can't, but their intention isn't proof either way.
2. That's not the point: we're talking about a hypothetical shift where top software engineering talent is fleeing the bay area. If that talent moves to Ohio, and there is no cheaper alternative of similar quality, Google might not have a choice.
Again, not pretending like I know what's going to happen. My point is that big-tech doesn't have total power in setting prices. If at any point in the last 20 years they could have hired qualified engineers in Ohio for $100k they would have already done it.
Can't have it both ways. SV pays top $$ because of 1) top notch skills and 2) cost of living. Now you are taking #2 away - so things will ease a bit
Again, if companies could find good talent at cheaper prices in Ohio they would. Existing talent moving around does not increase the amount. It's not a given that market rate will decrease.
I live and work out of St. Louis at the moment, and I've spent a bit of time evaluating FAANG salaries in relation to the cost of living in their relevant areas. While in most cases it seemed I could maybe get 1.5x to 2x my St. Louis salary, I was looking at around a 5x increase in housing costs alone. It never made any sort of financial sense to make the move (as much as I would've liked to).
Of course the most sensible approach would be to offer just above market rate in whatever the local market is. That can be awfully hard to determine though. It's much more a function of local supply and demand than anything that correlates to cost of living.
Is your employer really going to decrease your salary after the fact? Can you file taxes in your lower cost of living state after you lock in your high SF comp package and never notify your employer but still pay your taxes in the state you moved back to?
Note: I don't condone illegal behavior just thinking of edge cases that benefit us tech workers.
I guess the employer could have some contractual terms requiring your address to be at some location. I’ve never seen that though.
https://www.postbulletin.com/more-northwest-pilots-accused-o...
Yes. I have remote working friends who've been required to take a pay cut because they moved.
1) If company like Twitter is saying: "From tomorrow our default is work from home, but you all get 20% salary cut". This will be essentially a salary cut, nothing more. If let's say Facebook says WFH=on-site developers from Twitter will be flowing to Facebook because of 20% salary cut
2) In order for everyone in FAANG to say simultaneously that we have to cut salaries 20% simply because it is WFH now - there should be a strong evidence that productivity in remote workers is 20% less and they will need to hire 20% more engineers to have the same amount of work done. If it is not correct then companies have incentive to drive this number down to 10% or 0%
3) FAANG and overall Valley residents must also consider the long term effect on their community. I doubt that Silicon Valley will survive going 100% virtual and concentration of innovation can be lost if people go 100% remote. So they might impose 10-20% cut on a premise that they want to create a community on-site. Not sure how C-suits evaluate such factor.
Overall I suppose if companies go WFH by default they will need to reevaluate their incentives structures to be competitive.
Perhaps Twitter is leading the pack in an industry-wide pay cut? I hope not, but that seems to be what the rest of the workforce has experienced in recent months.
My full time job is producing video for YouTube. My revenue from ads is a straightforward calculation: I get 55% of whatever advertisers pay YouTube/Google to run ads on my channel.
Despite having posted record growth in every other positive metric, overall revenue (read: advertiser spending) has tanked in recent months.
Facebook. Google. Twitter. YouTube.
They are all internet advertising companies. And if my personal observations are any indication, I suspect they may be hurting for cash right about now.
I am voluntarily transferring from Google SF to Google London and I am taking a significant salary cut. London isn't really any cheaper to live in, but you can hire good developers for much less in Europe.
The employee's local cost-of-living will factor into the comp.
If they offer to raise the person getting 125k to 400k if they move to an expensive area, then at least it's fair :shrug:
If it doesn't matter where you are to work for the company then why does it matter if you're even in America.
If the person in Oklahoma pays $1k per month for a 3,000 sq ft home with a 1Gbps fiber connection.... why work full-time at all, or exclusively for one employer?
If COVID-19 really helped people to work from the Ouachitas at reasonable salaries, it would be completely awesome. But we're a long way from that. I love remote work and would like to see more people do it. But the past history of epidemics (e.g., 1918, the 1665 London plague, etc.) indicates people will go back to previous behavior--favoring urban areas--once the crisis passes.
There are a lot of us out here in the middle who want that.
I get your skepticism, but I'm going to hope against hope that telepresence technology will continue to improve and make that possible.
Pandemics historically have not had a big impact on the political economy unless they kill an enormous number of people. The Black Plague in the 1300s is an example.
It turns out to be fairly difficult to recruit engineering talent in the United States outside of major metropolitan areas. It also turns out that when tech companies start to hire people in a new city, the cost of living in that city rises substantially -- again, Austin in particular comes to mind.
In the end, if tech compensation decreases substantially I don't think it will be because of remote work, but rather because the recession will kill a lot of startups and the same amount of engineering talent will be chasing a smaller number of jobs, thereby giving employers more leverage.
That is inevitable if more housing is not built. If demand rises and supply doesn’t, or rises slower than demand rents and house prices rise. Or you could be like Tokyo with population growing 50% over the last twenty years and flat housing costs.
I find it interesting you chose to defend Austin against an attack that wasn’t made.
Of course, I also think there may be more than housing supply at work to explain why cost of living increases in a place that starts to see a new uptick in tech hiring. I’m not sure if anyone has studied and documented the extent to which increased tech hiring in a new location leads to a surge of new people trying to live in that area before cost of living begins to increase. If that isn’t the case, and cost of living and goods starts increasing before population does, it seems likely there’s more than housing supply to blame— perhaps all the existing property and business owners start raising prices to get some of those sweet tech dollars in their pockets?
My point was, responding to a comment that “housing costs are rising in Austin” by explaining it as “price rises are inevitable if you don’t build enough housing” is a very misleading statement. Maybe that is a true statement, but Austin does not satisfy the antecedent so it says nothing about the situation here. Unlike in many places, the housing is being built here, yet the prices are still rising significantly and forcing many out or into homelessness.
So clearly development is not a sufficient condition for keeping housing prices in check. Like you say, it could instead be totally driven by the job market. Or maybe development is a necessary condition, along with other things such as subsidized/public housing, job programs, etc. We have to move beyond armchair economist statements that are basically “har har har it’s supply and demand duh”, that don’t even capture all the straightforward/first order economics of all the various buyers and sellers of housing (demand for what type of housing? What type of housing supply is allowed to be built? etc.), much less the second order effects tangential to the economics. Your speculations are on the mark here, and we do need good studies that look at exogenous shocks to try to tease out cause and effect, along with lots of small-scale experimentation by governments.
Finally, I don’t know enough about Tokyo to comment in any way on that part of the post, so I did not.
I think it’s interesting that we both seem to have read the parent and GP posts quite differently. You read that the parent was responding to a post that said housing prices are rising in Austin. I read that the parent was responding to a post that said FAANG companies are hiring in new areas to cut costs, and cost of living seems to increase wherever tech starts hiring (and Austin was just a city that came to the GP’s mind as an example of this phenomenon). Yes, the parent’s comment about housing supply was a rather shallow retort that I think we both agree provides little insight and comes up too often as if it possesses sufficient explanatory power on its own—but they weren’t quite suggesting what you responded to.
To put it into a different space, what I found interesting and pointed out was that your comment read like others we’ve probably both seen where Programmer A says Erlang has a great concurrency model that enables developers to easily build fault-tolerant distributed systems, and Programmer B comes along to argue that the idea that Java doesn’t allow you to build fault-tolerant distributed systems is crazy. The idea was never suggested by A in the first place, so B’s response stands out.
Anyway, this has been fun. Thanks. Apologies for my original response coming off the wrong way.
If a company starts a new office in Austin and they had one in the bay, now they are realistically only tapping the additional talent in Austin. There isn’t a huge chunk of people willing to relocate to Austin that wouldn’t relocate to the bay.
Removing location restrictions all-together is a completely different ballgame because it opens the entire country up, not just one city.
I don’t really buy the argument that there is a major untapped pool of talent living outside major cities — if there is, what have those people been doing for work until now? It hasn’t been easy to have a good career in tech in rural areas, for example.
I would add, though, the defense industry. My city has a huge talent pool of engineers, software and not, employed in the defense industry. Many have top academic qualifications and long experience. The tech industry struggles to recruit them mainly because the tech employers in the area offer more or less equivalent pay and significantly inferior benefits (leave, retirement, etc). On a cost-of-living basis, at least at entry level, I would say the FAANG companies offer inferior pay and benefits - coming from someone who left San Francisco to work in this area and make, cost of living adjusted, twice what I made in SF, with significantly more paid leave.
My point is that it feels like part of the tech industry's recruiting problem is that there is a tendency to look, for recruiting, only within the tech industry and within its established centers. I have had offers from Bay Area and NYC companies for remote work which I have declined because their pay was actually below what I can get from local companies here, I think because they viewed this area as advantageous primarily due to low cost of labor. The cost of labor actually isn't as low as they think, and I suspect in part because their salary analysis did not incorporate what I can make in 'adjacent' fields like cybersecurity R&D and fundamental CS R&D, which are major sectors here compared even to the bay area in terms of per capita employment.
Or let me put it this way: this city is considered to have a total dearth of the tech industry, defined as startups and explicitly software companies, and it is largely ignored by tech recruiting. Yet, the third largest employer in the city is a science and engineering R&D institution with extensive software divisions, the second largest employer has large software and engineering sections although their employment numbers also include general labor, and the second largest employing industry in the area after services is defense, and the primary defense work in the area is currently shifting from aerospace engineering to software and systems engineering.
I left that industry and have actually been working for various startups in the area. I am often asked for recommendations to fill openings, and I have plenty, but the startups generally do not offer sufficient pay and benefits to dislodge them from a very comfortable career with a level of benefits, not to mention job security, rarely seen in the tech industry.
"Never lose your edge."
How about, enjoy your free time. Enjoy your friends and family. Work hard at your job, but maintain the division.
This hyper-productivity porn is a net negative. There is competition in this industry, but nowhere near enough to leave talented engineers fearing for anything. Not on a near time-horizon, at least.
To make this work I wonder how executives will adapt. In my company the higher you go up the chain, the more they want face to face communication. I guess most top executives are people persons so not seeing things like body language or using body language takes away an important skill set of theirs.
I think the biggest use case will be helping recreate the virtual water cooler.
Also webcam images generally look horrible. I am sure something could be done about that.
Better microphones and speakers in laptops would help. Better suppression of background noises like kids would help.
I think there are a lot of little things that could improve tools a lot.
A $20 USB gaming headset with a mouth mic arm might work, too.
How are you using the xlr mic? I have one but am using the USB output because I don't have a xlr port on my laptop.
USB mics like Rode NT-USB (or NT-USB mini) or Blue Yeti are fine, too. They are the equivalent of a very nice sedan.
I went for the next level up the Clarret 2pre but I do use that for my dnd streams and want to process my voice and to mix in audio.
Main problem with entry level class compliant usb is your at the mercy of Apple and Microsoft making your interface obsolete and you cant change your microphone to suit.
When I looked it, it was for the microphone (400 EUR) + focusrite 2i2 (150, yeah, I looked at dual) + cloudlifter (150) + boom arm (75) + cables (let's say 25) => 800 EUR. I tried not to think about GoXLR...
Compared to that, NT-USB + boom arm (PSA1) was only 200. Plus the space saved on the desk.
I don't really understand, what you mean with being at mercy of Apple and Microsoft. The only problem with USB mics that I'm aware of might be timing/lag, if you need it to be precise. That could be problem for singers singing to instruments, but not for spoken word.
If your in the uk the SZ-MB1 was only 17.99 compared to 150 for a cloud lifter and for mics I use some 10 year old entry level sure dynamics which where £25.
[1] https://focusrite.com/en/usb-audio-interface/scarlett/scarle...
This setup costs ~400$ so if you are just in to calls I'm not sure if it's worth it - but for me it was just getting a mic and now I sound like a radio host on calls :D
I don't own a GoPro so if there is a clone that has this functionality out-of-the-box it would be ideal.
There are really good USB mics these days that are just plug and play. The Blue series for instance (Yeti, etc).
What I can think of is a smartphone app that's always listening and transcribing, best-effort, all it listens. This can capture in person speech and make it searchable.
Also, are any of the current videoconferencing options offering machine transcribing out of the box? I know users could always hand-feed recorded video to a separate tool, but ease-of-use matters.
Emulating face-to-face-ness remotely is precisely the hard problem. As pg once said, the real world is incredibly high-bandwidth.
Communicating is 1/2 of business; it's really odd that so many people have difficulty with this.
I think because as Engineers, we measure value in 'code' then we tend to diminish all the other aspects of the business or process.
Meetings can obviously be a waste but they are also critically important.
The github corporate move from a flat structure to a hierarchical is probably a good case study to read if you're interested: https://github.com/holman/ama/issues/800
By this I mean written roundtables/stand-ups (with a focus on putting the detail in the tickets and just bringing up blockers), written RFCs and review periods for larger initiatives, comprehensive action logs (admin logs, etc), detailed documentation, detailed commit messages, etc etc.
Deadlines are fine, but people need to be able to be aware of the timeline up front and have autonomy to work within their own schedule to meet it.
This becomes especially important when multiple time zones come into play.
Essentially it's a matter of replacing as many meetings as possible with recored (written and/or multimedia) versions that convey the same content, focusing on maximizing transparency and collaboration.
If you’ve ever worked somewhere where the manager has way too many direct reports, you know it’s usually a shitshow.
Can you name some companies of more than a few people that don’t have managers? If you think they’re all a waste and a drag, what’s your explanation for why manager-less competitors don’t rise up and eat their lunch? Better yet, why don’t you start your own company staffed with only ICs and take over the world?
The Google of today is different: multiple billion dollar business units, all well-staffed with managers.
(I WFH exclusively for 10+ years and still regularly miss the office for anything which isn't deep down coding, but requires communication)
Not everyone wants to be remote, where I work they asked for volunteers for the first wave and had to turn people down for some groups. For these the separation of work and home is line they don't like to cross.
I dont think that is hard to replicate. Group chat / slack / teams is a common feature and can easily be used to fill this void.
and further if you are saying things that would get you in hot water with HR then it is unlikely that a verbal conversation is better, in fact in many of these instances having a record of the conversation can be helpful....
I work from home exclusively. I am in the same boat.
Earlier in my career, it was easy to make friends at work. I miss that. Lets go golf! Lets go drink! Lets go do this... etc.
I do think that ended up creating 'cliques' inside the groups though. Its probably better in the long run to try to establish a more professional relationship with coworkers. Just my opinion - and i'm likely wrong.
(I'm pro WFH but pretending it's the same just seems foolish to me.)
Sure, there are adjustments to new needs and technologies. But fundamentally, that's the easy part, I think. Communication skills are needed, and they mostly transition well. I find it plausible there are some people who don't make the transition well (in either direction) but that hardly points to a paradigm change.
Do you really think there is a big pool of people who would be effective at these roles if they just didn't need to communicate in person? Doesn't match my experience at all. Certainly agree that people are stronger or weaker on various types of communication, but in my experience that is definitely a 2nd order effect, compared to whether or not they are skilled communicators at all.
I totally agree that all of this stuff is harder remote, but if anything that leans harder on communication skills.
That's coming from personal experience btw, where most jobs / assignments I've had, it was usually open plan, flexible seat arrangements.
I have a new job now where I have a fixed desk with a set of drawers. It's a breath of fresh air and honestly it sounds so stupid and trivial. But employers don't have their employees' best interest in mind.
My cynical take on this move is that the company doesn't have to pay as much for office space + worker transport anymore.
I mean, I'm not a germophobe or something but I already thought it was gross how often I got sick and I'm 100% certain it was from my office environment, now I have a real reason that "suck it up stupid" doesn't just brush away. Every winter someones kid gets sick then it just blasts through the open office. Then it happens 3 weeks later, then again, then again..I'm pretty sure I got sick 3 times earlier this year, maybe 4.
In my personal experience companies have always said something like that, in particular in email or other forms of recordable communications, but then don't really back it up. Employees come in obviously sick their boss says "are you sure you should be here today?" but subtly indicates their approval for being in the office.
Companies need to move to actively disciplining employees who come in sick instead of either working from home or taking paid sick days.
I take 5k a day or so, Trader Joe’s has for $5.
Also keep in mind that there was always a threat of infectious diseases. And it will persist until we find a universal cure for all viruses. Being somewhat of a germophobe myself, I was always aware of it.
Hopefully, people will stay at home when they are sick, though.
The societies are very different. Here, the armed protesters demand haircuts and tattoos. In Europe, the French are flooding Spanish border towns in search of cheaper booze and smokes.
Yes, hyperbole, but a lot of Americans have legit apprehension about cramming into elevators to ride up office towers to work. It's seen as glamourous in the UK to work in a Canary Wharf office tower with a view. In the US, notsomuch.
Edit: I know people who still won't go into tall buildings post 9/11. Something that Europeans don't have in their psyche.
Here is an well-documented analysis of a specific outbreak in an office:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article
"We described the epidemiologic characteristics of a COVID-19 outbreak centered in a call center in South Korea. We identified 97 confirmed COVID-19 case-patients in building X, indicating an attack rate of 8.5%. However, if we restrict our results the 11th floor, the attack rate was as high as 43.5%."
Open office plans, low cubicle walls, cubicle sharing, frequent noise and disrespect of focus, flimsy banged up office chairs and equipment, no budget for standing desks, the lack of real employee lounges and couches to both work and chill out at, strict clocking in and out, and insufficient meeting space are chasing away good employees, especially now that we're all forced to work remotely. More people won't be willing to go back if they can help it.
Notice I mentioned nothing about free snacks, foosball tables, beer on tap, etc. I'd trade all of that for some semblance of serenity in the office.
This right here is my beef in a nutshell. My attention should be under my control. For example, I can't believe that leaving audible cell phone notifications on is becoming normalized.
Granted, remote work isn't free from distraction. Far from it, in fact. At least I can control the noise level and close Slack and email, if need be.
Amen
or it turns into a perk again if you think of it as a way to train yourself against temptation.
This mentality is weird to me.
"employee stock options are an anti-perk if you want to maintain a gambling-free lifestyle."
"airbnb travel stipends are an anti-perk if you want to maintain a body free of traveler's diseases."
"free on-site dry-cleaning is an anti-perk when they lose a button on your jacket."
everything good in life can be viewed from a dark angle, but it gets pretty tiring to do so.
Definitely? I have no kids and live with and fully support my father who had a brain tumor the size of a walnut in his head a couple years ago. Just because someone doesn't have kids doesn't mean they don't have responsibilities (goodness so many negatives in one sentence!).
This isn't meant to diminish the difficulties of people who need to look after their children. But I work in a laboratory where the senior people blithely complain about how hard it is to manage shared child-raring duties in a well-equipped home office, while junior employees are more or less expected to magically have a productive home office in a shared flats, often in less-than-ideal environment (e.g. with noisy room-mates or building sites next door), with RSI staring us down.
If my office was 10 min walk away I would not want to work at home, but it is 1h by car ...
The evidence shows that WFH work creep is a thing - you get people who dont know how to turn off, and bosses who think they can get more out of you since you are a few feet away from your laptop.
There is also a decrease in creativity and networking - evidence again shows that a good team has someone who is very tuned to the emotional and mental states of the people around them doing a lot of bridging.
Finally - the people who work at office get more money over time, unless the firm takes active measures to combat these biases.
Don't forget it removes the work/home barrier. Now you are at work 24/7 and on call at all hours. Work and productivity has consumed most of modern life. The last bastion of freedom from work/productivity was the home. Now people are celebrating the loss of that precious personal space. Strange.
Working on a UI and server for just that. Plug an API key for a cloud provider into the UI which will help users move data from their laptop to a private bucket for example, or spinup basic infra, enable sharing with other users accounts for opt-in data collection
Sell or donate access to specific data in your account on your terms.
The web is dead. With the right tools anyone can leverage the cloud to regain a ton of privacy and control of their data. Maybe we can dismantle through free market effort, the technocracy middleman now that building such software is trivial
If you trust the privacy of cloud providers, you can spin up a server and use https://sandstorm.io/, which is designed around that: private infra, with granular sharing of data.
If you don't, you need local compute and encryption. Keybase would be a decent example - while you can't use your own cloud account, they only see encrypted data.
That said, there's a reason a lot of people deleted their Keybase accounts when they got acquired by Zoom. Data mining is very enticing, so outside of projects ran by idealist volunteers - which will always have a hard time competing with funded companies -, how do you keep developers from adding mining abilities even to the native/self-hosted applications?
There are so many positions at Microsoft, for example, that I would have loved to apply for, but they require you to be in Redmond, and I'm just not in a position to relocate.
I started working in one team and switched to another team internally because they are pro-remote and I plan on moving back to Australia. Broadly across Microsoft there are also about ~30 other engineers already working from Australia for Redmond-based teams.
I don't know about Microsoft in particular, but from what I've seen it's much easier to find a remote position while you're already at a company working onsite than it is before you get hired.
This might also be a trust thing. Studies have found that in-person social interaction leads to increased levels of trust among the group, but remote social interaction doesn't have this affect. The higher you go up the management chain, the more trust is required to perform your job effectively. ICs usually work under well-defined, measurable conditions: you can determine from their work product whether an engineer, salesperson, or designer is being productive. Executives do not work under these conditions, and arguably the job of an executive is to define those metrics. To get everyone rowing in the same direction requires an immense amount of trust and collaboration amongst the high-level leadership of the company, and it seems like it'd be challenging to achieve that virtually.
Some of my thoughts were: - Make sure there is good high speed internet - Good conferencing - Good office / working conditions - Great outdoor activities nearby
For a flat rate per month, a person could have a furnished apartment, a working space nearby, and access to the great outdoors. If I had multiple locations, you could switch locations after a week or two.
Why wouldn't someone in the Bay area want to go live in Sheridan, wyo for a few weeks, then possibly Laramie, Wyo. Maybe some Zion in Utah for a bit. Royal Gorge in Colorado.
Every few weeks, you just pack up your laptop, clothes, bikes, and go to the next spot.
I guess its office/lifestyle timeshare space.
I never pursued it beyond thinking about it.
It's on the product side that things are tougher. Great product work is often about finding meaningful insights in the data available to you, and that often involves long conversations between people with lots of different viewpoints. There's something about doing that in person that is just really hard to replicate remotely.
Even getting the environment exactly right only goes so far. I find that over Zoom people are just a little bit less engaged and that means getting to those really important insights takes a lot longer.
Previous to covid we had solved this by colocating our product team and then bringing the engineering team together once a quarter with product folks to engage them in those conversations. Now we're just sort of feeling our way though it...
Product and Design so far doesn't seems work well without close face to face collaboration.
And now that they are at home, they are not trying as hard to pretend they are listening closely, and since they are more comfortable, they are staying in the meetings and saying what they want? Whereas before they would let the most assertive person talk, and after a few minutes could not tolerate the in person meeting anymore and so pretended that they were all in agreement so you would let them go, knowing they would work out the actual details amongst themselves later?
And now they don't have the option of working things out after the meeting, which is another reason the meetings are taking longer.
The biggest issue for you is probably that you have a lot of wasted time where only a part of the team is working together in the meeting but other people who are not involved in that part are just waiting for them to finish.
Do some research on the tools that engineers use to work asynchronously and train your product team. Also consider smaller video chat meetings, and chat rooms, etc.
Creativity is better face to face.
WFH works perfectly for routine non random event related work.
When you need to communicate fast, need to come up with insights - essentially when you need that high bandwidth node to node interaction of working together - then face to face is significantly superior.
We are designed to work with other humans - chunks of grey matter exist only to interpret non verbal cues. Heck we actually suck at symbol manipulation and math, those are learned skills we force our species to pick up.
It should not be surprising that when working face to face, we end up using those default programs installed in us to get more work done.
Just being able to clarify something is faster if done in person because you have access to body language, eye direction, and tone.
Video goes only so far, and is still not as immediate and in person as physical presence.
https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2014/h...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/when-wo...
Most managers especially at the top are also not the most diligent people, they have employees to do the stuff that they dislike doing so when they are faced with having to do more prep work and move at what they consider a slower speed (they are wrong, all that prep work and due diligence pays off, Bezos and Amazon are a great example of that) they recoil.
Infrastructure: Do homes have chargers, desks, screens? If not people will soon get carpal tunnel or lose productivity.
Internet/VPN security costs are real.
Productivity creep : Some of the main issues with WFH have been work hour creep. Managers and other employees feel its easier to make requests for more time given that you are now a few feet from your laptop. Lack of discipline also means that people now work longer.
Rewards and promotions I can't find it right now, but I recall WFH resulting in lower pay relative to people with the same qualifications who went to office.
Mental costs: One of the main issues with WFH has been loneliness. Fixing this requires immense effort to recreate physical proximity.
Creativity is also lost when you cant engage in banter and catching up with people.
Infrastructure: my company provides money to setup your workspace. Buying a desk is the most expensive part here but really you can get a solid setup for < $500.
Internet costs: I was already paying ~$120/mo and I get some of that reimbursed. This seems like a standard living cost though, not something unique to working remotely.
Productivity creep: I define my schedule based on my deliverables. At least with my team, no one expects me to be available 24/7. I work a full day but if I need to run an errand or take care of something during work hours it is no big deal. As long as I am getting my work done, everyone is happy.
Rewards/promotions: who knows - anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much here.
Mental costs: if you live alone, this could definitely be very lonely. I am lucky enough to have a wife, kid, and dog so loneliness isn't an issue. But this really depends on a case-by-case basis.
Personally I love working from home. It is more comfortable, I am paid incredibly well despite be scaled for a low COL area, and the work is super interesting. The most important part of this is now we can move wherever we need to for my wife's career. This flexibility is hard to put a price on.
https://smallbiztrends.com/2020/02/remote-workers-are-lonely...
https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2014/h...
When I started as a developer, my team was fully remote (I was the only developer in NYC, most of the rest were in Portugal or elsewhere in the US.) I found it very difficult to ask questions remotely for several reasons: I never knew if I was intruding on somebody else's time, and explaining things over Slack isn't as effective (in retrospect, I should have made more use of video and voice chat). YMMV: some people are probably more bold in asking questions remotely. For newer developers, this is important.
You really can't overstate how useful it is to just plunk your laptop down in front of another developer and ask questions while staring at the same screen.
At my current company, I'm usually co-located with our other developer, which made the process of clarifying things for both of us a lot easier. As I've gained experience, I've found it a lot easier to ask questions remotely: we've made great use of various voice/video/screensharing functionality for this purpose.
This isn't really a remote-only problem
is this just a lack of understanding that (or a lack of your company embracing) chat/email is asynchronous communication?
I work remote, and all of the people who don't want to be disturbed have snoozed notifications and I understand that they'll get back to me when they're ready.
I prefer the onboard buddy / mentor approach: I just tell my mentee to override this.
That's the thing ... this discussion isn't saying everyone has to move away from SF, that's ludicrous. But if you want to live in SF, my point is why would you want to have to be on public transit for four hours every single day? It takes time you could use for living your life, and contributes to pollution.
In an ideal world, you could live in SF, work for google remotely, and maybe pop into campus every few days or even weeks, as needed. And then google can also hire from the millions of developers that live elsewhere as well. That way: you could live on the beach, live in socal, live in norcal, live on a farm in Iowa, live in Hawaii, live in New Jersey ... whatever kind of life you want to build, would not have to be linked to whether there is a company you want to work for in that place.
1) I live in San Francisco. A ton of residents here commute to Mountain View and environs for work. A ton.
2) Most of those residents are young.
3) One of the few things that has been reliably proven to improve your happiness - even more than a salary bump! - is reducing your commute time.
4) With WFH (work from home) everyone who commutes from SF to elsewhere could cut their commute from 2 hrs round trip, daily, to 0.
5) Ergo, a ton of young people would quickly see the logic of this: WFH and cut your commute time to 0. They would want this option, and they will take it.
I know this complicated somewhat by the fact that you can work from the buses, but I still don't see the overcoming this widely shared preference, for no commute.
Reducing time commuting on a comfy megacorporation’s arms-length-contracted-carriage-provider bus has been studied much less, and it’s not nearly as clear it improves people’s happiness that much.
Also, taking your commute time to zero isn’t obviously an improvement in happiness; there’s a lot of psychological benefit to having a separate space for work and home life. It’s possible for some people to prepare a home office that successfully feels separate, but it’s not automatic.
As an aside -- I prefer not to use the term "work from home", as the ideal (for me) is the ability to work from anywhere at my option.
Also, for what it's worth, co-working spaces can be a workable alternative to a traditional office.
Of course the latter is more an issue of the pandemic right now than just remote work in principle but I have the sense that remote working also leads to less spontaneous interaction.
Certainly, there are different clubs and groups out there, but the people they attract are fairly homogenous, and monofocused on their topic of interest. There are coffee-houses and bars, but you'd be lucky to interact with anyone there repeatedly in such a way as to form any durable social bond.
The only other quick option for gaining automatic access to a well-rounded social environment that I can think of is a church, but educated young people tend to enter the workforce with a contempt of organized religion that ranges from passive to visceral.
At a tech company?
Our congregation (not part of that network) is one of the rare places where I interact deeply across generations, economic classes, and social classes from professor to auto mechanic. I couldn’t reliably predict someone’s politics. No congregation is perfect, but a common mission crosses a lot of divides.
One day that just comes to a hard stop. You're sitting in your childhood bedroom on a computer. Your friends have all scattered to the wind. What now?
Of course it's possible to build a life from scratch, without the benefit of an institutional attachment. You can enforce a schedule for yourself. You can go chat up strangers in bars or meetup groups or whatever, and build a social network that way. But it's not hard to see how this level of flexibility, so suddenly, could be suffocating.
Contrast with a mid-career professional who already has a spouse, a well-developed social network gathered from the many communities he's been part of over the years, and the structure/routine of childrearing.
I have plenty of friends and family around me, from the various communities I've been apart of before my current workplace, and I'm loving being able to spend more time with them (online) during my less-packed days than when I had to commute to and from an office full of people in different stages of their lives than me, hence less likely to become actual friends of mine.
I don't see why turning 22 should hit the reset on your entire social life.
So, I started going out to the London Linux User Group. I made friends there, and a few of us ended up going out for weekly curries/tech markets together, getting drinks, and eventually attending each others weddings (John, if you're reading this, we're all still sorry we laughed when the offical said your middle name was "Leonard").
I live in Manchester now, and have worked from home for about 12 years. I ran the local Ruby user group, and run the local Go group, and these groups have provided me with a group of great friends. Even in the relatively non-tech heavy NW England there's a tech event on most nights, and lots of non-tech groups to find.
I don't think the situation is as dire as you make out :)
That's the problem.
We can have a nice local life that flourishes, once the utterly stupid situation of having everyone converge at the same time on a fixed point is forever slain.
A downvote to zero for the suggestion of living locally and playing soccer ten minutes after work.
You are right. Why would you guys have friends?
This is hilarious
90% of my current friends were made through work.
I think work and commuting adds to this. Like in the bay, imagine if people stopped commuting going from sf to oakland wouldn't be a nightmare. Now you can visit people.
Or if you have flexible lunch time and free time from commuting you can do local things, take classes, visit stuff, do social things. Instead we're stuck waking up early to get ready, commuting, eating lunch at work, commuting back, prepping dinner. The day is almost shot except for an hour or two in the evening.
I do what you say: take classes, do social things. And yet my most lasting friendships have come from work.
Maybe I'm the minority, or maybe it's the constant excuse to be around together that forms more lasting relationships.
Are you saying that your company cares more about if you're in your seat at a certain time during normal days? Because that's a completely separate issue than WFH or not.
That is once we stop making buying a home the most significant financial decision of everyone's life, also, as real estate collapses after centralisation is removed as a key ingredient.
Do you know many young people who would love to live in a quiet suburbia over a busy city with lots of things to do? They, of course, exist, but they aren't the majority. I doubt that remote work will suddenly make every young person appreciate the quiet suburban lifestyle, and lead to suburban towns being heavily populated by young people.
The thing is, do young people want to spend their youth and efforts "reimagining" this (the effects of which they won't even see, even in the most optimistic scenario, until they are well past their youth)? I know that I, personally, don't. And it seems unlikely that a lot of young people would be willing to latch onto this kind of "opportunity" either.
It isn't even about "white picket fences", it is about the number of opportunities around, which you only get with high population density. Which is the antithesis of the suburban style of living.
Also generally if you live in the suburbs you probably co-habit with your family and probably spend your commuting life wishing you could see more of them (this is orthogonal to the city / suburb question really - it has more to do with the older / younger split).
I have a fairly small 1BR. I don't really have a proper work environment set up--what's the point of cramming a desk in if I'm going into the office every day? I have no yard, so at the moment fresh air is limited. I work, cook, eat, and sleep within the same three rooms.
That's not even touching on people who paid out the ass to get studios in trendier neighborhoods. Personally, I'd lose my mind.
Contrast this with my parents in the suburbs. It's normally a longer commute, but there's a dedicated office, a back yard, and just generally more breathing room.
I think a lot of this is less WFH-related, and more, y'know, apocalypse-related. I could work from a coffee shop or coworking space. Go to the park. Go out for dinner/drinks in the evening. Hell, I could've gotten a bigger, cheaper place if commute time wasn't an issue.
But for the time being, the sprawl of suburban living seems to have its perks.
From a tax perspective it's mostly no different than if they had a small office in that state.
For big companies, in particular, it's not that big a deal as they're probably using a payroll service like ADP anyway. There may be some paperwork--and certainly more so if other countries are involved.
The other scenario involves visa workers. The I-140 is predicated on not being able to find local candidates that match a criteria. More broadly, the H1-B visa grant pertains to foreigners being able to work in the US at all in the first place. I'd imagine that if you had everything setup to be remote from the beginning it'd probably be fine to keep things humming along, but I imagine that switching surely must pose some sort of logistic challenge?
This is not always true.
I'm remote. I pay my state and CA taxes for my CA based company even though I have never set foot in CA for this job.
I've worked remotely for 5 years and have only ever paid state income tax in my home state, not wherever my employer is.
I confess I've never been in the position of being officially completely remote. I certainly don't pay taxes to the state where my company's HQ is but then I'm officially in an office in my state of residence. (And maybe the existence of that office would make a difference even if I weren't actually assigned there.)
You're required to withold taxes in the state that work is performed. If you're working from home, that's your work location.
You should get refunded for your CA taxes at the end of the year if they are being withheld.
And then tax issues aren't just the employees' income taxes but the company's tax regime.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17022563
It's definitely way more complicated than adding an employee in a new state.
Now imagine you ran one of the big billion+ USD revenue tech companies, and you're not talking about different states in the same country but a distributed workforce in many countries and the political pressures on taxation of e-commerce or similar business models involving intangible goods. One of the key arguments in many a tech company's tax/legal toolbox (usually for arguing they should pay taxes on one jurisdiction instead of another) is in which countries their engineering efforts reside and to what extent.
It's really no wonder that employment legal & finance wins out on totally flexible work arrangements in that situation, for better or worse. Politicians aren't taking any hostages in this context, see eg. France.
To provide an example from sufficient years back: I had to represent the stance of a past employer on compliance with Russian privacy laws to Roskomnadzor[1] in their HQ in Moscow. Through a carefully planted trick they tried to get us to commit to establish just the right kind of representation to be able to tax our revenue from Russian customers. In many countries, the narrative would've been "you have engineers here, you therefore build your products here, you should pay income tax here". Curiously, there isn't really obvious right or wrong in all this since the goods are intangible.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=roskomnadzor
(Disclaimer: experience entirely from prior to my current employment at Google, I don't speak for Google in any way and have no insight into these matters at Google.)
Your payroll provider generally tells you that you’re on your own for all that stuff.
For every additional state there is a ton of overhead.
I’ve had employees in California, Washington, and New York. It took two years to unwind Washington after the one employee there left, and it took a year and 20 hours of lawyer time to unwind New York, who was trying to charge us $5,000 as a penalty for missing paperwork we didn’t think we had to file (we ended up being right after paying the lawyer).
The only thing you are on your own for is tax filings and registration as a foreign entity. And that is only in some cases in some states. In most states, having a few remote employees is not enough to even trigger a filing requirement. In CA, which is probably one of the most draconian, we had to register as a foreign entity and then we have to file corporate taxes there and allocate taxes proportionally according to percentage of revenue that comes from CA, I believe.
And actually, they want your corporate income tax even if you don't have employees there, just because you sell to Californians. But they have had a hard time collecting for those that have no employees or other presence in the state.
I know for a fact this is wrong. Payroll companies don’t do worker’s compensation in Washington because the state runs the insurance program. You have to register with the state.
https://support.gusto.com/state-registration-compliance/comp...
All 50 states have a different process. Many require you to get a private policy but some have state run funds.
As an example, I have to deal with my insurance agent annually for my worker’s compensation in California and then deal with Washington separately for their scheme.
I got covid and was (and still am) as sick as hell. I'm going to live (not sure if I will get back to 100% yet), and I never thought this kind of sorely needed decentralization would happen in my lifetime. It almost feels like a fair swap, as this is going to be so, so good for humanity. If we can get a decent handle on covid, I'm actually feeling optimistic for my children, for the first time in years.
Even now, there are some good rent deals. I moved to a new apartment a couple weeks ago (mainly because I needed a better WFH space to work effectively) and got 6 weeks free on my lease, which isn't normally seen in the bay area.
When the pandemic passes though I do hope to be able to return to working from an office, if just because it's less lonely and there is usually better sunlight in business spaces than what I get at home. Maybe 2-3 days a week in the office and 2-3 days from home would be a nice balance, when it is safe to do so. Employers may also see the value in at least providing some additional financial incentive for living closer to the office and being willing to come to the office (if safe), although enabling full remote work for those who choose it is something I also fully agree with.
I work for a very pro remote work company, but that’s still how we did things. You want to move to the Midwest and work remotely, or apply for a transfer to a different regional office? Happy to let you do it, but know that the market rate for your skills there is X, which means an adjustment in salary for a voluntary move. People usually weren’t jazzed about it but understood.
Does relocating from San Francisco to San Jose also come with a pay cut? What about to Stockton? Modesto? Further out?
Being on the periphery of a high cost area is probably the best deal. For most companies, for example, I imagine that Boston/Cambridge will be considered the same as Boston suburbs--even though within an hour drive you can get to vastly cheaper housing than in the city proper.
Only if you don't live frugally, or if you aren't a senior engineer.
If you do, a lot of the high costs of a high-CoL area can be avoided.
If you are a senior engineer, that XY% raise over a junior is free money... Applied to a larger starting salary.
Oddly enough, high-CoL areas have the same, or higher % raises, when you are promoted, than low-CoL areas. In the mid-west, the wage difference between a senior and a junior may be $30,000. In the bay area, it can be $150,000. Your CoL doesn't go up just because you have a better job title.
So to be honest, moving to a cheaper area with the exact same COL might not be better because of other factors involved.
How many places in the United States have the immigrant communities of the Bay Area, for example? And how do you recreate such communities in cheap places without making them expensive?
So you can own/lease a broom closet or pied-a-terre in Expensiveton, maybe rent it out intermittently or to a "roommate", and actually work and sleep in Cheapsville.
If home address has an impact on take-home pay, it will be gamed just as hard as all the other metrics.
Happy to let you do it, but know that the market rate for your skills there is X, which means an adjustment in salary for a voluntary move.
my question is: in this hypothetical, did my skills somehow lose monetary value to the company because I left the west coast and bought a house in Indiana? What’s the calculation on that one? Let’s talk numbers.
I’d love to sit down to coffee with a hiring budget manager one day and get into the weeds on CoL against present value and just do all of the math until the cafe closes or one of us has to take the first coffee induced “bio break”.
Or at least, this is how it would go if my company tried to sell me on this. Hell, I might even be amenable to the pay cut if the company was otherwise doing right by our relationship as employer and employee and I felt sufficiently invested in continuing that relationship, but we’re going to get real mechanical and be VERY thorough about it.
It doesn't have anything to do with your skills. It's just that they believe they can replace you in Indiana with a lower salary.
I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense, just that they're probably thinking about it in that way.
For people where there is only a handful of people with those skills in the world, they command ny/sf pay wherever they live.
What's my 'demand market', as it were? Is it Cali where my parent company lives? Is it Chicago where the subsidiary division I support operates? Or is it Indy?
How does one negotiate salary taking in all that when negotiating a permanent full remote transition?
(This is just for the sake of the hypothetical, I’m very satisfied with my current actual arrangement, but we’ve crossed into a new working world and consider me a career “prepper” or something)
Ultimately, every negotiation comes down to BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement.) You have to demand from the company you think can/will pay the most the amount of compensation you are confident (but perhaps not sure) that you can get from the second-expected-highest company. This is similar to a Vickery auction -- the winner is the person who is willing to pay the most but they pay the price the second-highest bidder put forward.
In tech labor, the distribution of compensation for the same work is much wider than almost any market participant realizes.
Appreciate the back and forth on this, it’s an interesting set of conditions we’re wading through as a society and I enjoy the thought experiment.
———
* there may be a better way to phrase this question, unable to figure how to put it, at the moment-if you’ll accept the pleasantry as far as the hypothetical will warrant it.
But if this becomes widespread, they will be.
It makes all the sense. If you can get an apple for $1 from seller A and the same quality apple for $5 from seller B, why would you buy from seller B?
But for your run of the mil developer -> senior developer, a large chunk of that $150k Bay Area pay for non-FAANG is COLA, no way around it.
It’s a bad idea for a company to pay you significantly more than you could earn at a different job. Because then you’ll never quit even if you’re miserable. You’ll stick around and be a toxic presence.
But, the crucial thing to remember is that people's calculation of ROI of compensation to COL is way off. And so they're being under compensated in places like the bay area relative to other areas. Bay area is 50% more than the rest of the country but the COL is x4 to x8 (heck even day care is x4 more in SF than houston).
i've posted this before: https://skilldime.com/blog/see-which-cities-pay-the-highest-...
As you can see, you're way better off anywhere outside the bay area even if the salaries are less.
You're pay going up by x3 could have many reasons. If you're in the early part of your career, that's very much possible but it's not typical of an average SE in SF vs an average SE in the rest of the nation.
I disagree. Your skills didn’t drop. Your value didn’t drop. They weren’t going to hire anyone in <location> anyways, they’ll hire <local> if you quit. So you’re negotiating between them wasting time & money hiring for someone of equal value locally
Honestly, if you go 100% remote, you are now competing with a much, much larger pool of developers. You are not going to command Silicon Valley prices.
The outcome is that Bay Area folks will get paid less than their current pay, and those in India get paid more than their current pay. Because there's no way my company can afford to pay all their developers Bay Area rates.
That would be using exactly the same rationale as your comment: Equal pay for equal productivity.
Let's not pretend that all companies are cash-strapped startups. The FAANGs of the world and the Fortune $x companies and the multinationals can absolutely afford to pay their global workforce uniform wages, but they choose not to because it's not maximally profitable to do so.
I'll contest that. FAANGs are extreme outliers. I can assure you my company, while it certainly can pay everyone an extra, say, 10%, definitely cannot pay all its SW engineers Bay Area salaries. And then Non-SW engineering companies - even the top ones - rarely have that much money. Their operating expenses and capital costs are a lot more than a SW company's is.
That does not really make sense. Work does not have some inherent value, its value is based on market situation, and different markets have different price equilibriums.
software engineers have it pretty good, anyway. this manager's example is perfect: sure, people grumble, but they typically eventually accept a reduced salary. why is that? even at a reduced salary, most laborers will be OK with a non-physically-straining, intellectually decent job that lets them live where they want to live and largely earn enough to not worry too much.
Prices are set by supply-and-demand. More to the point, companies will pay you the least amount of money they can, while still retaining you. Just like you pay the toilet paper company the least amount of money you can get away with, even if you get vastly more value out of it.
You're welcome to reject the above on principle. But then you'll have to settle for the next best alternative. And if the company's done its homework right, your next best alternative wouldn't be any better.
Why do janitors, and wait staff get paid so little? Two of the most important jobs in the world are to clean things and feed people.
I guess anyone can clean a toilet or cook a burger, but to what level?
What about teaching?
Our world is definitely out of balance. I don't know to what degree, or as to why.
If UBI existed and no one "had" to work, then people would probably have to pay a janitor or a cook $200 per hour.
When you work in an area with fewer jobs in your field, it's far less likely that you'll have a competing offer that'll jeopardize the company's ability to keep you. That means your opportunity cost is much less, which means that the floor on what they can pay you is less.
(A similar dynamic on the investor side is why startups end up starting in the Bay Area to begin with. In most other regions of the company, there are very few investors willing to invest in high-risk tech startups. That means that a prospective startup needs to take the only financing option they can get, which means that the investor ends up owning the majority of the company. The Bay Area has a liquid and competitive market for funding, which means that there's a real chance of a VC firm losing the deal, which is what allows startups to raise capital on fair terms.)
It's standard practice for your company maybe. This hasn't been my experience at all. I have had three jobs where this was not the case. I've had colleagues who have experienced similar as well. People should be paid for their time. I can't even believe a company would want to engage in salary reduction negotiations with employees they value.
This seems logical, but determining X is still in your authority, so let's not pretend this is fair. It's usually not a granular break down of skills either, or worse, it's calculated by job title plus a single primary skill, e.g. "Senior C#/.NET Developer".
To simplify, it seems like either you want developers that are physically present in London, in which case you have to find some and pay them London rates, or you don't particularly care if they are physically present, in which case I don't understand why you would pay someone working remotely from London differently from someone working remotely from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.
Presumably in both cases your company is getting the same value out of the employee. So why not hire only people working out of the Welsh countryside and refuse raises to anyone who wants to move to a higher COL area?
In other words, it seems like if I decide to work remote and lie about where I physically spend most of my time, it would make no difference to the company but might make one to my compensation, which, ignoring any moral judgement, just seems strange for the company.
Companies do this to a certain degree. My anecdotal observation is that a lot of tech companies that aren't in the Bay Area or only have a small presence there don't in fact try particularly hard to be competitive with the big Bay Area employers--unless there's someone they really really want. People may still join for various reasons.
You don't pay a non-London salary because the employee lives outside, or a Euro-denominated one because they commute from Paris.
You should pay for how GOOD an engineer is. Not for where (s)he lives.
Define "GOOD".
For a business a "GOOD" engineer is one who is able to deliver business value at minimal cost. If by "GOOD" you mean talented then you have to realize that the US doesn't have a monopoly on talented coders.
The greenback goes far in many places within your timezone. If borders are opened up via remote work companies will be forced to re-evalute the axes by which they quantify "GOOD" (talent, cost).
It seems like nobody wins in this situation. If my goal is to maximize savings, I'd move to the Bay Area to get the maximum salary from you and find the cheapest housing in the area. I'd be miserable because I'm living in a place I don't like in a shitty apartment. On the other hand, if you offered to pay the same amount while I live in the midwest, I'd be happier with my living situation and be pocketing more cash. This would make me more productive and make me stay at the company longer, with no additional cost to you.
I'm sure that if one of your directs asked for a raise because they moved in to a more expensive apartment you would politely refuse.
[0](https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru...)
It's not paying less that's silly, it's paying an artificial amount less. The only way in which location should come into it is restricting candidates to those located in (or willing to work to) a particular time zone(s).
I think this comes down, we're not paid based on revenue we generate. But to keep us out of the talent pool. Or how much an adjacent firm may be willing to pay us. I don't believe it's based on what I can offer.
The next argument is on market salary demand. I live locally in a market that makes no use of my technical skill set. If I need to keep cash flowing I find any three month contract to keep the lights on. But then I go back to being remote, and compete on a remote pool.
Now we're on a remote pool set. America, or another cheaper to live country. If it's an external firm, do we have a middle company that can handle that tax implications. So we can hire a developer in Southern Asia or Europe. That role can now be filled for a drastic monetary reduction. But at the cost of management over head. Time zone difference, communication lag, better remote processes / documentation, etc. I've helped a few teams acclimate to these off shore changes.
As an aside I always found it odd companies that outsource a majority of their development to an off shore firm. That will never be on site. But if a full time, on site, employee asked for a wfh to watch a sick kid, they had to burn a PTO day.
Compared to an off shore developer there is one thing a country local developer may offer. Better communication with stake holders. Working in the same time zone. Communication especially remote is a big deal. I've seen a number of teams not be able to adapt to the time zone difference or communication differences.
I went to work for a FAANG company several years ago. I took a 35% pay cut off my last local job, while my rent increased by about 60%. I did it for the experience. I've never seen the high FAANG salaries people talk about, but that's just me. I'm also horrible at leet code / hacker rank so there's that, and I studied for over a year on hacker rank to get that job.
As to my experience with cost of living adjustment frankly they've been border line insulting. Locally, on site, if I find a role that uses most of my skills I'm looking 150/180(full time / w2 contract). I had a fully remote contract role, that used all my skills and challenged me. That paid me 245. I always look at my rate as what is the given task and job duties, because I generally work medium to long term contracts. Senior Software, vs Dev Ops, vs SRE, vs Product manager all have different salary bands. I don't have a blanket salary, it's always what's the role you're asking me to do.
When I first got a COL adjustment rate, I laughed. Then I became frustrated, and then I ignored COL adjusted salaries. Coming off a local contract role at 165, I was in talks for a more senior position, full time remote. A company out of a high cost of living area no less, started at 95. I'm not against being paid a bit less, but that drastic of a pay cut is insulting to senior staff. If you're going to pay me less, I want to know why.
Regardless of locale, I'm incurring more costs. I pay for better internet, stocking of coffee/pantry, electricity, and the big expense space. I still live in a city. Getting a second bed room can help a lot ensure a better work from home environment.
Globalization is going to become very interesting. I moved from New York for about a 10% salary reduction, while halving my rent. The determining factor is politics, and how people can adapt to working remotely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_employment_opportunity
[2] https://elsajohansson.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/what-does-a-w...
We've tried to make a vaccine for the original SARS. It's been 12 years now and there's still no successful, safe vaccine for it. For COVID-19, if a vaccine is released within the optimistic 18 months, how safe will it be compared to vaccines that went through all the trials normally?
An employee’s rate depends on how much they would be going for in the market, and living costs are part of the employee’s expenses—not that of the company’s.
To be clear - I'm a big fan of remote work, I'm just saying that companies have been forced to solve only a subset of the problem they face before the market really can scale to be that large for everyone.
"Work from home" is the first step. If a company embraces work from home, it embraces completely asynchronous communication. As soon as that becomes an acceptable way of solving problems, Vlad making $50k/year in Ukraine who will do 65 hours a week will become a contender to replace Jackson in SF, who is making $250k/year and refuses to work more than 40 hours a week because of work/life balance.
How many people think tech companies are just completely well-intentioned in everything they do? Curb your enthusiasm, a healthy chug of skepticism is needed.
I'm not saying it will never pass. But history has shown it's much harder than you're making it out to be. We already had a great outsourcing attempt 20 years ago which had questionable results. And now pay is higher than ever.
Maybe they will be successful this time. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I haven't based my life around earning an SF bay area salary. My retirement is already paid for. My house is 80% paid for. College funds for children are mostly paid for.
I think this is, as usual, specific to the Bay Area and maybe NYC, and also limited to the top 10% of developers at tech companies.
I don't think tech salaries are all that great even in other big cities like DC or Denver, especially as home prices have also passed their 2007 highs, while salaries were stagnant and bonuses or equity are nothing like in FAANG companies. This is especially true when non-managers salary cap at about 40, which is when many professionals in other industries are just getting started making good money.
A lot of small cities might have no real tech companies and only a few large Fortune 500 companies that employ half the software engineers in the whole city. All it takes is one or two of them to decide to offshore half the IT department to Bangalore while signing a big deal with Cognizant or Infosys for the other half in house (i.e. H1Bs brought in from India). If you're stuck in that city, you're looking at wage stagnation for a long while.
It's still okay if you're a good developer - top 25% - at age 27 making $90K in a low COL city, while most of your peers are barely out of grad school. But it's not when you're 40 making $120K and all your peers - nurses, government workers, sales, lawyers, entrepreneurs - have caught up, often with far more stability and better working conditions. I think software engineering has gotten to be a dead-end career for a lot of us not working at tech companies in big cities, and globalization and H1Bs have continued eating away at the industry for the majority of us working as contractors and at big corps.
The technological barriers in the last 20 years prevented effective outsourcing of tech jobs. Since the technology did not work, the cultural acceptance of it did not matter.
I did one of the first live streaming events over the internet in 1995. It involved a convert venue, a dedicated T1 line to the data center hosting the web server, a Cisco 2501, a computer camera that i rigged to a frame grabber, and a "beefy" web server running on Sparc10. After we got the telco to install the line it took about 2 days to do the rest. The "broadcast" lasted between 11pm and 3am. I think it had about 9 concurrent viewers at its peak and 12 total. The promoter of the venue paid ~$4k to do it. That's the accessible "telepresence" at the time.
I was at a company that had offices on the West Coast, NYC, DC and UK in 2000 or so. We had a video conference system and IP phones. It was possible to do a "meeting" with the other offices and it worked pretty well -- sound was fine video a bit jerky. It helped that we had our own network. Someone tried to take a headend home and use the his at home cable connection. It sucked. The video barely did 5-10 frames a second.
Today I can walk into most of random coffee shops and do a professional quality video call. The technology is here. The only blocker for leveling playing field is cultural. The circumstances are forcing companies to remote the cultural barrier. Would they put it back when the lock downs are over? I seriously doubt, especially if they save $200k/year per high paid employee.
As companies go remote, they will depress salaries as a side effect of no longer having a locality-sensitive hiring constraint. But again the cause is the hiring constraint—not the location the employee is in.
Their biggest problem is that they are on Eastern time, despite being way too far west for it, observe DST, and start public schools way too early.
Also, they have developed traffic circle cancer all over their north side.
Companies: "I don't have to pay you $big_city rates because you live in $small_town and nobody there will offer you $big_city rates."
Candidates: "I don't have to accept $small_town rates because I work remotely and can work for a company in $big_city."
Because if it wants to hire workers that live in SF, it has to pay SF wages. It doesn't have to pay SF wages to workers living in Tulsa.
Think about it flipped around a bit. Let's say that instead of hiring employees, you're buying candy bars. Someone running a bodega in NYC isn't gonna give you a discount just because you're going to have the candy bar mailed to Oklahoma.
The bottom line is not the $X value and the $Y compensation. It's a lot more complicated than that. Just like the company's bargaining position is a complex mixture of the value that different employees provide and the opportunity cost of leaving a position unfilled, the employee's bargaining position is affected by the salary the company is willing to provide and the opportunity cost of accepting this job offer instead of another.
Not yet. When Tulsa engineers wake up to their value, they hold the cards.
I’ve been on the hiring side for good senior engineers. They’re hard to hire, period.
They take a ton of time to properly screen and by the end of the interview process, the company has wasted so many resources that could have been used for development if they don’t land that person.
The most impactful benefit for me is I get to work on $big_city problems with $big_city talent. $Small_town problems and the $small_town talent are mind-numbing and deeply frustrating to work with
Why not you?
As an analogy, imagine someone from NYC traveling to Mexico City to get tacos from a cart on the street at 9 pesos a pop (about 50¢ US). Those tacos are better than the tacos in New York, so why aren’t they paying $4 each?
Even with regional adjustments, the math usually works out in your favor to not be in the bay area.
All they should be able to ask is what fraction of their work hours you're available for. It could be that everyone must be online 9-5 PST, or there're a few hours of overlap, or there's no expectation of common work hours as long as you "get your work done."
That's an interesting theory. It doesn't match what I've observed where the offshore team almost always had a skill gap with the on-site team.
Make no mistake - work from home means the salaries are going to regress to the midwest level of pay.
You're also now competing against a national talent pool vs locals only
You decide that B has to compete with A on talent, but A doesn't have to compete with B on price.
Does that make strategic sense?
If you want to hire B, you have to compete with local small town companies which pay low wages, plus a very small number of remote companies which are in the same position as you from a game-theoretical perspective.
I think it's obvious that in the long term, if remote work becomes widespread, wages (and thus cost of living) will level out, but in the short term if few enough companies do it they can beat the prisoner's dilemma and keep remote wages lower than the ones in Silicon Valley.
Some do. I've gotten this deal in the past personally and know others that have as well. Always for employees with tenure that they want to keep around. Remote salaries in tech are typically well-above "local" rates, either way.
IME blended teams are by far the hardest to make work.
Obviously there is an exception right now, but normally "working from home" means you can work from anywhere you want (different country, parents cottage, coffee shop, outside, where ever).
I work for a tech company and we have people who regularly go to Europe/other places for months and work from there just getting up/working later depending on timezone.
Most people assume that working from home or working remotely means sitting at home at a desk and working the exact same as you would an office. In which case you lose the office communication. But that's wrong.
Yes, and there is some correlation between age and seniority. If companies are so eager to hire senior developers, they might consider the preferences of candidates who have been working long enough to fit that description.
My home office in my small 2br city center apartment has a better monitor than the one at my open office workstation, I can listen to whatever music I want, no BS small talk, and I don't feel like there are eyes on me constantly. Plus, commuting sucks no matter where you live, most city dwellers don't live within walking distance of their offices.
I do like the opportunity to socialize w/ coworkers from time to time but 2-3 days/week in office is more than enough for me.
Imo, remote is a big perk once you have a couple of years of professional work under your belt, but a real challenge before that point.
And some of my staff can’t even do phone calls if their roommate has one at the same time because they have small apartments. I don’t even have that problem.
Not interested in providing rent-free space to my employer.
First Twitter was already moving towards permanent WFH before the pandemic, it only accelerated their plans. I highly doubt (m)any other companies were also seriously considering that move before the pandemic.
Second, working in a remote only team is very different from working in an office, or even from occasionally working from home. I have seen the best managers get completely clueless when managing full remote people.
Third you lose a lot of things by going full remote. You can no longer have hallway conversations, sharing new ideas over lunch, trying to pitch new ideas organically. You lose a lot of spontaneity by going full remote, which I fully expect to impact innovation potential. Some of the best ideas in my group are things that came up from organic conversations that we have been productizing.
Fourth has to do with company culture. I can't speak for every company, but I know that at my company there is a very clear favoring people local to where the HQ is located, probably at least in part for the reasons above. I don't see that changing easily. East coast to West coast in the same team means you have 3 hours a day where you can't have your whole team available at the same time.
What I expect to happen is most likely much greater flexibility for companies that were not open about it before, but full time remote for everyone seems like a huge stretch even over several years.
Is it, really? I always hear and read this, but I see very few anecdotes.
In thinking through my own interactions, I'm not sure anything that happened in the hallway, break room, or at lunch table actually contributed much more to the bottom line than conversations I've had over VC and Slack.
Per the story, Jobs had the notion of designing an office that encouraged interactions between teams with broad open areas, communal social resources and bathroom placement in central atriums to encourage unplanned interactions between teams.
'Brad Bird, director of The Incredible and Ratatouille, said of the space, “The atrium initially might seem like a waste of space…But Steve realized that when people run into each other, when they make eye contact, things happen.” ' [1]
[1] https://officesnapshots.com/2012/07/16/pixar-headquarters-an...
And then they went back to private offices to get stuff done. Both are requirements to the formula for this success.
I've worked from home for about 6 years, but I still went into the office for the occasional meeting and white boarding /idea session. I don't think total remoteness will work very well. You have to have in-person interaction to collaborate effectively. It's just human nature. The delay of voice chat deteriorates the spontaneity of communication.
But going back to work to the all-open concept, where there are, effectively, no private/personal spaces, is also not the way forward. We need to get back to the old-fashioned idea of having offices for knowledge workers, and not just the VP's (who are never there any way).
In my experiences, all the big decisions are already made before scheduled meetings take place. Spontaneous one on ones, hall way chats, coffee walks, etc are where those discussions are made, and very often meetings are just an official "let's get everyone on the same page for the record" exercise.
A lot of people are probably more creative in a textual medium or even talking on the phone where they can't be overheard (I hate the feeling I might be distracting someone).
I wouldn't be surprised if the office squelches a lot of creativity. Of course, it all depends on the office environment and individuals.
At the start of all this I would have agreed but as the weeks go on my coworkers are just getting more and more introverted and you really have to push to get any sort of discussion about product and strategy, everything ends up into a meeting format you can't just do the sitting down, riffing and chatting which is where the actual creative work happens.
Might have a different perspective because I'm more on the design side than the engineering, but I'm very aware none of the most transformative moves in my company were all born out of discussions outside of work in more social settings between designers and engineers, I know some people don't like hearing that but that's the reality at my company at least.
Do you have co-workers who never have need of any detail or specific nuance? Or do you just mean water-cooler social chat?
Implementation of a task requires broad technical knowledge of what is to be accomplished, as well as specific technical details. How will body language communicate either of those?
As the saying goes, we spend our lives converting one proto into another.
I don't think this will happen because of people are worried about virus transmission, but instead because most people like working from home and we've proven we can be just as productive when we're out of the office.
That said, I'm one of the few people who like going into an office. There are fewer distractions and better food options. :)
However, I fully believe I can build a home office that's better (for me) than most employers can, at a fraction of the budget. It's a more efficient solution than a centralized office, but it's coming out of my pocket and not theirs, so it hurts me more.
Of course, your direct complaint seems to be the square footage, not the hardware (desks, etc). That's a tougher one to solve for, because larger square footage is opex instead of capex, and it'll be more challenging to get your employer to part with opex dollars.
(Yes, there are larger apartments, but they are somewhat rare. Maybe this will change!)
In NYC, 2/3 of households rent, according to a 2017 government survey: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nychvs.html.
Not to take away anything from your point: it is an interesting thought experiment. For people who have an intuitive understanding of opex v capex, it's also a very convincing argument for owning your apartment (since your mortage "feels" like opex, but is actually capex, and it's always better to spend capex dollars).
This is especially true in markets like NYC, where you might never reasonably expect to pay off your mortage (since it's a coop, or the principle is 10+ years of untaxed salary).
Would it matter the interest/equity proportions of the mortgage payments? Also what about the other costs associated with owning the real estate (taxes, maintenance)?
Interest in most loans is front-loaded (i.e. your payments are mostly "interest" rather than equity in the earlier parts of the loan), and you can write off payments towards mortgage interest on your taxes in the US. So, while interest is technically opex, the government currently allows you to treat it as capex, tax-wise, because they want to subsidize home ownership. If you aren't in a top income bracket, this won't affect you much.
Other costs are tricky because, in competitive markets at least, taxes and maintenance cost are usually priced into your rent, so you're usually paying them whether or not you own your home.
The big difference is that when you own the home, the taxes and maintenance costs arrive all-at-once (when your home floods, or the boiler falls apart), rather than amortized over years of residency. That's why mortgages are almost always "cheaper" per-month than rentals: rentals price these costs in, mortgages do not. If you have a good chunk of liquid savings and can afford good insurance, exposing yourself to occasional all-at-once payments are not very risky.
Also, you can eventually and typically write off big expenses (if you rent out part of your home, or sell it later and keep good records). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-home-improvemen...
I don't think your problem with quitting has anything to do with WFH policies.
If you don't have to go in everyday, the possible commuting distance increases massively. Before the virus, I worked from home and my commute was 160km twice per week by high speed train.
People like their socialization at work. Many also like living in the city anyway (granted, most of my colleagues are young and childless). And outside of extreme cases like SF, a tech salary is enough to rent a decent apartment.
Take a map around the office where you work. Look at the kinds of home prices you can find an hour out. See how much closer you can be to nature or other particular amenities that matter to you. Would you like to have those with zero total change to your commute time?
Sounds pretty nice to me.
Having a 1 day a week office would I think help people move away from high cost areas. If I only had to do it once a week a multi-hour or even flying to the office once a week wouldn't be bad (assuming that we return to our previous status quo with air travel.)
I don't think flying weekly to an office scales up as well as you think it might.
That said, I'm notably introverted and happy as a clam during quarantine, more or less, so I'm probably not representative of the country as a whole. Of people currently working remote, I think we'll see about 20% of people who won't want to go back into offices. For my own selfish purposes I'm really hoping for a paradigm shift towards more remote work, but I accept it doesn't work well for some people.
I don't feel like the current scenario is indicative of a well structured WFH setup, even though we've been doing it for 2 months now.
In short I hope companies don't use this interlude to evaluate WFH productivity, because I think it isn't the best representative.
We still manage to work with the same productivity in my company but we already had some experience with WFH.
The problem is going to be when performance is evaluated -- no matter how much leeway has been given now, I will be compared in some respect to my coworkers who have been able to manage this transition better, who haven't had a turbulent home life, etc. etc.
This is giving me the stressies.
My day is basically split up into maybe 20m at a time where I can do something before being distracted.
I end up working during the night to catch up (just got done), but this is unsustainable long term.
My wife and I both work full time with a 3yo at home, so rather than put him in front of a screen we work in shifts - one of us does 6:30 ᴀ.ᴍ. to 12:30, then we switch until 6:30. It's really tough.
Best investment I have ever made.
I imagine a thoughtful approach to “everybody WFH” would include a coworking space credit if needed, a stipend to equip one’s home office if needed, etc.
“My home is too small / distracting / I like to be near people” => coworking space
“I don’t have an ergo chair / etc” => stipend
Fun times :-)
I don't think you know what you're asking for :)
The ability to hash things out verbally is a great escape hatch, but it has turned into a crutch. I hope universal WFH will push people to work to a standard where it can be the exception instead of the norm.
> Kids at home yelling at each other, other coworkers distracted
In my experience, working at home isn't much different from working at work. If you don't have a private office with a door, it's going to be very challenging to focus regardless of whether you're sharing space with your coworkers or your family. Long ago I worked in a cube farm that had the depressing gray regularity of a low-effort DOOM wod, and I'm not sure that wasn't better for productivity than the attractive, high-end open plan offices I've worked in since then.
In a couple of years, my wife and I will be living in a different house, and we will both have private offices, cost be damned. I've decided mine can be as small as 10'x6', as long as it has a door and a window.
I think it's very important to realize that if we are or are not productive WFH, there will be others who feel the opposite.
Working from home doesn't work for everyone, or it doesn't work in every case. Maybe it can be further optimized to work better for most cases, but currently it's not.
* Speaking as someone who recently started a new job two weeks before the government SIP for the Bay Area and has had to mostly virtual on-board and ramp-up. It has not been an easy experience. Maybe it's the on-boarding/ramp-up for my team that's not optimized, or maybe it's not easy simply because I'm not already a full-time remote worker already. Some people who enjoy WFH and get remote jobs probably don't have the issues I've had, and that's okay too. But I think it's unrealistic to expect everyone joining a new company during this situation to be properly productive through it and potentially WFH indefinitely. For my company in particular they've already mentioned we'll get to WFH for this through the end of the year.
I sort of had this setup before covid: the company I work for does consulting and my coworkers and I will often be at client's offices. When we write our contracts we make sure to always designate Friday as the day where all employees come back to the 'home base' for meetings, catch-ups, socializing, etc. It works quite well, and we'd always look forward to Friday's because of it.
If I could continue to WFH 3-4 days a week and then go into the office on Thursday/Friday, that would be great.
I think this is the right balance.
The former opens up more options, but it only opens up a tiny percentage of the options that the latter creates.
This is the best of both worlds for a company.
I can certainly see companies wanting to pay less based on CoL simply to make the bottom line better. Given the way capitalism works, I'd say this is a near inevitability. The end result will probably be that the big tech companies are going to start "offshoring" work to the Midwest, and other low to very low cost of living areas. ("We'll pay you $70k per year, but you can live wherever you want in the US!")
I can't see this being good for employees, because there are significant benefits to living in a place like NYC or the Bay Area, and those benefits would be lost if people had to live in the middle of nowhere to make it worthwhile.
... that want to live in NYC or SF. For everyone else, who doesn't want to live in places like that, this is awesome. (And that's a word I never use)
And I think there'll be more desirable cities to live in in the future if remote work becomes the norm across fields where it is possible. People will start to liven up locations that nobody would otherwise look at as long as the jobs aren't there.
And, yes, maybe there are not enough software developers in SF, NYC, Austin, and other tech hubs to drive up prices, but this move will certainly drive down compensation. I have a hard time believing such a move would end up being good for workers.
"Desirable" is a multivariate subjective assessment, not an objective trait (or even a mostly-consensus one).
One of the best DBAs I've had the pleasure of working with would, from what I've gathered, prefer to be in a boat on a lake somewhere in rural Alabama than to be in many of the major "tech hub cities". Being a software engineer doesn't mean you have the same opinions as other software engineers (as a quick search of programming language trends might show, at least on a superficial level).
The fundamental problem (for the cost-cutting employer) is that good engineering orgs really do generate that much value.
This happened with the wage-collusion attempts in the valley. Facebook was willing to give more raises than Google or Apple. In the latest roll of the dice, AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, and friensd were willing to pay more. It's the cycle of business.
There are other places in the US that are warm in the winter, of course, but less of them are also nice in the summer. Then among those, very few of them match the Bay Area in friendliness to things like LGBT causes.
I have a feeling that many people will continue gravitating to the Bay Area.
This is a sincere question, by the way. (It's also a practical one - I just accepted a fully remote position, and I'd move to the Bay Area in a heartbeat if it weren't so expensive.)
Bay area has one of the most closed minded people when it comes to politics. Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO) talked about it in his interviews with Joe Rogan and such - how do we make sure that voices across the spectrum are represented on Twitter and just not what silicon valley thinks is acceptable? There is definitely bias.
I don't want to open a can of worms, but I personally don't like living in the bay area.
If it's anything like Seattle, there are great and beautiful communities a few hours away - you get the same weather and even better nature but it's too far to commute. And they're a lot cheaper.
Seattle is also as expensive as New York and the Bay Area.
What makes you think this is true and not just a post-hoc rationalization? Let me put it this way: offer that salary worldwide and you will still have difficulty finding top-tier talent, as many remote-first companies are finding out the hard way. Having been a hiring manager in such a position before, I will tell you that you are still competing against every other remote tech company to find and hire from the same global talent pool.
Secondly, you're not accounting for communication ease and timezone differences. A huge amount of the world is cut out if you optimize for remote candidates within +-1-3 TZs.
Finally, the assertion that the average valley firm doesn't need a $200k+ in 2020 USD terms engineer is also not necessarily true. Demand for senior talent is significantly higher than for mid range and junior talent, because mid-large size firms want it (to bolster their senior roster and make it easier for teams to subdivide), and small firms absolutely need it (they simply do not have a senior engineer and need at least one).
You verbatim asked "why pay $200k for a software engineer same talent can live outside of the bay area and can do with 1/3rd of the salary" and you got a response. If you think there's truth in what I'm saying but find that response "unpleasant and combative", I have two suggestions for you:
1. Communicate more clearly. If you are meaning to express an argument rhetorically or as a "devil's advocate" but it's easy to misinterpret your statement as if you simply support it, consider rewriting your comment for clarity.
2. Rethink your premises. If you actually do believe what it is you're saying, consider that you're the argument of "same talent for 1/3rd of the price" is the original offshoring argument, which has well known conceptual issues.
If you're more thoughtful about checking your assumptions when you could be wrong, it will be much less likely that you end up in a situation where you find yourself saying "Gee, I found so and so's response unpleasant and combative, even though there is truth in what you're saying." If you put your hand on the stove, do you criticize the stove, or do you realize that maybe it was a mistake to put your hand there and then move it away?
My feedback is to learn how to write in third-person grammar [1]. It is one of the most important skills in effective communication and it puts the issue at the forefront.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first-second-and-third-person...
"The question I have is what portion of the $200k salary is 1) due to the raw talent of the individual 2) because they live in the bay area. From a company's POV, if they have to pay a 2x premium for the local talent, what are they getting for that price, if anything?"
First of all, I switched around the order so you're leading with your priors. This sequence makes it clear that the statement "what portion of the $200k salary is 1) due to the raw talent of the individual 2) because they live in the bay area" is not your conclusion, but your starting point. I phrase the second sentence that way rather than "same for 1/3rd of the price" because it focuses on why people are _already_ paying the extra money when they could buy the cheaper "substitute" product rather than leaving unquestioned the presumption that the two are substitutable.
Sorry if this advice is unwarranted, but given that you've clarified what your intentions were from your post, I think the underlying curiosity is still pretty valuable, and I believe it's worth exploring. I would just personally take a different stylistic approach as described to explore it.
1) How many people transfer to rather than from the Europe or India office? I'd wager that it's mostly in one direction, which is towards the higher wages.
2) Are RSU grants are adjusted downwards after the transfer? I believe the answer is no. Which means that the total package is not decreasing significantly until cliff.
3) What's the pre-existing financial situation for folks that move towards a lower CoL area? If you've already made a significant enough amount of earnings in the US that you could survive off of them in your destination, the base salary is going to matter a lot less.
4) Is there lateral incentivization in terms of trajectory? If you get to start a new office in a different country (or head a new team or something along those lines), the clout you develop long term may be enough to balance out the temporary salary loss, as when you return back to your origin country, you could have leveled up substantially and retain your level. You're effectively engaging in arbitrage here.
Suffice to say, I don't have a great answer, but I will note that this is a pretty specific exception, enough to make me repeat that platitude that "it's the exception that proves the rule."
It’s only difficult to hire developers anywhere because you don’t want to pay what it would cost to get a yes.
I wish more people would reject zip code COL so that companies starting to WFH don't just take Gitlabs idea of it.
In the end, I think zipcode (and COL) is a weak proxy for talent. It's very easy to measure zipcode, compared to talent.
But, think about it from the other angle: if you have a history of this talent (earning high salaries in high-COL zip codes or otherwise), why on earth would you accept anything less than that, when moving to a lower COL area?
To me, it seems like a decision that would hurt the employer more than help them, since the people with proven talent would work for companies that don't discriminate on zip codes. And that costs more than the investment in assessing incoming talent levels.
None of the salaries I've seen there seem remotely "senior/architect" level if you want Bay/WA talent.
That's the way I see the company, at least.
My location during any of this transaction bears absolutely zero significance. If I'm worth $300k to generate $5mill for you don't worry about whether I'm living in NYC or on a ranch in Wyoming.
If you're willing to take $60k for a remote job you can make $160k at because that's the actual global market value you're doing all of us in the field a disservice by working for the low COL wage. It's bad enough salaries have barely risen for other fields since the 70s. Our field can work anywhere but we need to make sure we don't let our salaries slide by letting the Gitlab style take hold.
Often on hn I see people thinking they need to take a pay cut to work remotely. You don't! Same thing.
Don't forget that there's a really high competition among applicants so someone will take those 60k offers. And when it's 8-10x their average salary in their home country, then you can't really blame them.
I'm not really serious, I can probably get a better offer from a US company, but it still irks me.
Adjusting by CoL is only good for the employer, if a worker is worth X working remote in SF they're worth the same amount in the middle of nowhere.
But the competition tends to be fiercer in a higher COL area, so you are still not guaranteed even a median pay job in that area if you cannot get it. Many do not. The "higher COL area = higher pay" equation seems magical except it hides that it also includes higher competition.
Of course the competitiveness matters. It informs the level of optionality and leverage they have to negotiate. I would say that it's the only thing that matters. What about the CoL adjustment is weird besides it being reflective of the somewhat ugly and distasteful truth that to the company, you are a human resource and fungible cog? That's what they're paying for.
This employee will have to think about what happens if they do not come to a favorable agreement with their employer. Their BATNA completely depends on 1) the demand of other firms in the area (or remotely) and 2) their relative ability to compete. If they can perform well enough to move to a competing employer in the same locale that pays better, they will.
Their calculations and reasoning are completely irrational. Rent is more a lot more in NYC, but utilities are the same; medical costs are the same; groceries are roughly the same (I found them cheaper in Manhattan than in nearby suburbs); you don't own a car (or two, as a couple); you don't have the expense of maintaining a large home and yard; etc. It costs a lot to live in NYC, but you can't compare the rent on a 1BR NYC apartment with a 1BR suburban apartment and say it's three times as expensive. It's a completely different lifestyle, and the choice for people like me is between a shoebox in the city with the perks of city life, or a comfortable 3BR home with a yard in the suburbs and a car and maybe a swimming pool or a boat or something. It's not a cheaper life, it's just a different life.
Care to name some?
In my own experience throughout my career I've been both severely overpaid and underpaid relative to my economic impact.
Anyone have thoughts about this?
It's like if your rent was information you were required to give to your employer. They could then make lower offers to people with lower rent, because the market conditions are now warped in favor of the employer.
Or maybe practical beats ethical.
It's interesting that folks envisioning a globally uniform payscale tend to posit SF salaries in Hanoi rather than Hanoi salaries in SF.
Also, employers always pay employees less than the value of their work and pocket the rest. This is called profit.
The minimum wage for a McDonalds cashier in NYC is $15/hour.
McDonalds also operates in India, and hires cashiers that do essentially the same work. If the employe was able to pay $15/hour for the same type of work in NYC, then shouldn't they pay the Indian cashier INR 1,125 / hour? Or what about the other way around, why shouldn't the NYC cashier get paid at the Indian cost-of-living?
And forget wages, how about the cost of goods and services? A 4BR house in Columbus, OH can cost about $300,000 — but the same house might cost about $3M in Palo Alto. Is this unfair / discriminatory? The house itself might be identical.
However, in remote work, this is no longer true to the degree of other jobs (disregarding regional taxes, paperwork, etc). The job can exist anywhere and the value derived from it (all else being equal, like worker quality, etc) does not change.
Wouldn't this be true of remote software engineer jobs too? Market forces would drive wages downward. If you live in Minnesota and demand SF-salary, your neighbor (who is similarly qualified) might accept a lower salary, and their neighbor might accept an even lower salary, etc until you find the local market equilibrium.
Are you suggesting that that's unjust?
The net result of that is that software engineers in Minnesota get paid lower than software engineers in SF.
My question is: how is this unjust? By your own argument, the difference in salaries for physical cashiers across the globe can be attributed to market forces. I'm making the same argument re: remote software engineer salaries.
Also, this argument can be used the other way around. Why should an employee know what the employer's finances are? Perhaps the employer has the raw ability to pay an employee more (even if it's not economically expedient), but why should the employee know this? Why should the employee know where the employer is physically situated?
In every market, the employee and employer both have information on where the other is situated and how much they are able to pay / receive. That's not really information asymmetry.
Also, at this point, remote software engineer salaries are some of the most well published in the industry, though there is definitely room for improvement in salary transparency. All that being said, I don't think you can convincingly argue that ALL remote software engineers ought to be paid exactly the same, regardless of their local cost of living. They can certainly try to negotiate their wages up, but there will also be downward pressure on wages if the labor market is loose enough.
It's not just rent/mortgage price differences, there are also different laws regarding taxation, healthcare and retirement.
On the other hand you can't offer someone in the Bay Area a Eastern Europe level salary. Nobody would come, but you can offer a slightly higher than average salary in E.E. and they would definitely come. It's just that a global company needs to hire in both regions to be competitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro%E2%80%93Stiglitz_theor...
I'm not cranking out code that is somehow less effective while living in the NW England, and so to pay me less than someone else is downright insulting.
I also, to be clear, don't have any hard feelings about people who live in even cheaper[0] places than me, it's their choice. I used to work with a guy in the Phillipines who was on the same as me. Good for him!
[0] It's not that cheap in the NW England. It's clearly not SF, NY or London, but it's not cheap.
That is very short sighted. Your dollar value is highly dependent on where you live, that's just reality.
1. That is very short sighted.
Short sighted? You mean, the area-independent wages I've been earning for the last 10 years or so are going to stop? I can't see that happening, if that's what you mean.
2. Your dollar value is highly dependent on where you live, that's just reality.
Only if I am doing something that requires me to be in a certain place, because that's where the value is created. There is a local market for drywall fitting in SF, and there is one in Bunghole, Montana. You can't make the CA rates in MT because you can't provide the value in CA while still being in MT.
As a programmer though, I can provide value wherever it is needed from pretty much anywhere I want to be. I'm not providing value in my house, here in England, I'm providing the value at the place I work for.
It's for this reason that I'd fully expect to be able to charge Polish rates to a Polish company, and SF rates to an SF company.
If I applied for a job/contract in Poland for instance, I'm not going to stamp my foot and throw a tantrum because they won't pay me SF rates. I'd expect them to offer me Polish rates. I also wouldn't expect them to pay me NW England rates (which are likely much higher).
- Work hard
Reputation is a thing. You don't have to kill yourself, but the industry isn't that big, so getting a reputation for being a slacker isn't going to help.
- Be a nice guy/gal
This can be a reputation thing too. No-one that is worth hanging out with expects you to drink, or stay out late if you don't want to, but the more you get to know people and the more pleasant to be around as a person you are the more likely you are to succeed. Meeting people if you can (conferences, meetups etc.) and convincing them that you are a nice person (bonus points if you are) can kinda remove the first stage of interview.
An ex co-worker invited me and a friend round for dinner a couple of years back while we were travelling. It wasn't some polo-shirts-tucked-into-slacks and golf networking type thing, he just did it out of the kindness of his heart. I remember that, it's good for people to remember you like that too.
- Convince people you are smart
Being smart is one thing, but you have to market yourself too. Don't be obnoxious about it, but don't hide it away. This can be anything from emailing/slacking the company "Hey, check out this cool thing I did that you might be interested in" to just chipping intelligently (but respectfully, see the nice thing) in conversations/meetings. Going to conferences and talking intelligently to people about stuff helps, or the harder route, contributing towards open source. "I have three rails commits" a lot more impressive than "I have no rails commits" (if you're into Rails, check out the Rails github issue tracker, you can literally create PRs and get them merged).
- Take an interest in people, and listen
Even if it's hard, like it is for me.
- Focus your attention in the right places.
Like on upcoming or hard to hire for technologies that smart people are starting to use but that aren't ubiquitous yet. No-one with a "bums on seats" mindset is going to consider a remote PHP or JS dev if they tripped over 5 walking from their car to the office that morning. For me this was Rails. It's still hard to hire Rails devs and that means that companies are having to consider remote people, and the wages are good.
Go is another wave. Popular, used by some smart people, hard to hire for. There are others I'm sure.
- Apply anyway
Just like it's totally possible to get a job that asks for a degree when you don't have one (my first job ever for instance), you can apply for jobs that don't allow remote then ask to work remote. Let them tell you no if they want (don't get too invested of course), but I've worked at companies that have tried to fill spots for over a year, good developers for a lot of technologies are hard to find, and at a certain point companies that aren't friendly to remote working, with the right candidate right there, but who wants to work remotely might just re-consider.
- Apply to companies that are remote
Gitlab famously pays location based wages, but might actually be a decent stepping stone to somewhere else. Shopify does remote, I don't know if they do location based wages. Basecamp pays SF rates. You can apply to all these places, and maybe be rejected, but then apply again in the future. I know that there's at least one person who didn't get into Basecamp on the first application.
- Meet people, if possible
It helps that when people see your CV they think "Oh hey, I remember ngngngng, they talked intelligently about threads vs processes at that conf". If you're shy, that's tough and you'll need to work round it. I was shy and worked round it, so it was possible for at least me.
- Become a contractor/consultant
You need skills that you can market to a company (I do Rails performance/scaling and upgrade consultancy, I made someone's controller in the critical path 1500 times faster and orders of magnitude smaller the other day, that's good marketing).
You also need to market yourself. Reputation helps, but then so does a website that tells people how much you've helped other people in the past.
- Once you are there
Make sure to tell people about your successes. If you're working at a company that is not fully remote this is even more important. "Hey peeps, I thought you might be interested in this thing I did" again.
- Have an idea where you want to be in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years.
Mostly this is about not letting yourself get stuck in a rut rather than having a fixed plan. Don't let yourself get used to the grind.
- I don't know, maybe do move to the Bay area
Are you young and single with no kids? It might not be a bad move. It could be a stepping stone. I have visited SF a few times and loved it, but then each to their own :)
Once again, this is I think what I did and I think what worked for me. It's all cumulative though, and I'm 40 now, and starting the local Ruby user group maybe 13 years ago was a long time ago, and a distant first step on the path to where I am now.
I think your perception about salaries outside of the valley is skewed.
For example, are you equivalent to a L3 with 0 years of experience at google making 200K, or an L6 with 10 years experience making 600k?
That is a pretty ridiculous assertion. Rent and taxes are higher but they are not $130k/year higher.
You can even save >$70k of the $200k you make in the bay area without being exceptionally frugal, which you obviously can't do if you're making $70k/year.
We've all worked with highly qualified offshore resources (as well as many bad ones). Do they really deserve that 20k salary when we're making high six figures?
I've started hiring abroad. It's a different form of management, sure, but you absolutely beat the return on investment.
My advice is to try to stick with the same timezone, and the same language (or roughly anyway).
I think a lot of people are going to be super surprised what a quiet room and your playlist of choice can do to increase productivity. Just my 2 cents.
It's the same for me – at home, and the opposite at the office. I live alone.
That being said, their games in the other rooms of the house are occasionally pretty loud, but is it really worse than an open office?
He grew up that way though, so YMMV of course.
Ironic thing is, she also works from home about 80-90% of the time. Guess she inhabits that mind-set more easily than I do!
That’s helped in most if not all cases.
Outside of all that, it comes down to self-discipline.
A proper work environment is key, including limiting distractions and proper ergonomics. You also need co-habitants which respect and understand the boundaries and work rules. It really helps to have a house. I live in an apartment and can't control the distractions(literally as I hit 'reply' someone started a power saw in the garage below my office).
The best way to do partially remote is to have even the in-office people dial into the meetings individually as well. This also means trading in your whiteboard for remote collaboration tools like Lucidchart to allow remote folks to contribute as well.
If you actually do this, then I find that over time, the in-office people will begin to question why they are in the office and slowly drift off to be remote, leading to a 100% distributed team.
If you don't do this, then the remote people slowly get isolated and cease to become valuable contributors, eventually either leaving to fully distributed teams, or coming back into the office. Either way though, the partially distributed team eventually gravitates one way or the other.
- "conference rooms" are inferior to an individual at an individual laptop with a headset on.
- If any collection of people are at a conference room together they're exchanging looks off camera or notes before or after the meeting.
- Being fully remote makes you think about online documentation first, not copying it later.
The team I had the most face-to-face interaction with was because I managed to talk the recruiter into to allowing me to interview in the SF office, where some of the team actually worked, despite continuing to insist I'd have to move to Mountain View if I got the job, that "no one" works in the SF office (despite the closest thing to a majority of the team I interviewed with did), and that remote work was also not an option. That trip the worst interview I had in the day was remotely with someone with "regularly works from home" seniority despite "it's not generally allowed". So much about that interview I suffocated in dumb mistakes because I was angry about a lot of details about that interaction given conversations I had had with the recruiters immediately before and after.
The second time the team was mostly based on the East Coast (closer to my home than Mountain View, lol), the recruiter insisted I had to interview in Mountain View, and the only person I interacted face to face with that entire cycle was a different recruiter (terrible flights and bad traffic included).
I had a very hard time not feeling very personally insulted at how much they wasted my time with remote interviews I could have done from home without needing to fly most of the way across the country, continuing to insist that remote work wasn't possible for the positions I was interviewing when very clearly remote work was already the default if they expected people to be in Mountain View working for teams in other cities. It was not a great way to sell Mountain View to me as an option, and I was already quite clear with them that Mountain View wasn't a city I find interesting to live in, if I could avoid it. (Not that I could probably afford SF or even East Bay, but very specifically if I want to live in the Exurbs of an American city, I don't have to leave home to find equally carbon copied wastelands of strip malls, parking lots, and bad traffic just like Mountain View.)
Go about 3 miles west and you'll find beautiful mountain forests :)
(I can directly contrast that in my own experiences with an interview in Huntsville, Alabama that gave me a much greater appreciation for the Huntsville area's beauty far beyond "it's where we went to for expensive space museum field trips in school". It did help a lot with my interest in that position, though that wasn't a position that happened for other reasons.)
Tech companies are so focused on making their interview cycles all day gauntlets and grueling/wearying tests/challenges that so many of them forget that they are also in the process of trying to sell the interviewee on their company, their lifestyle, their neighborhood. If you are asking me to potentially relocate, then of course I'm going to be paying attention to every part of how you sell your quality of life and its surroundings. (Especially, if I tell you I'm willing to relocate, but would prefer remote work and would need to be sold on the relocation. I've asked employers to try to sell Mountain View to me and so far most have failed at making it seem like a place I would like to live. That's a lot on them.)
Working in the office had huge inertia behind it and it does make things simpler for middle management because they can easily just walk around and look over people's shoulders to tell if they're working on browsing HN all day or interrupt for some face to face.
Get a large house, a swimming pool, a home office room with all the games and gadgets you ever wanted, a nice surround 5.1 system optically connected to a gaming pc, a nice couch to rest now and then and plan your code ahead.
See if you still miss your cubicle (nothing wrong with that, but just what i wrote a thought).
Thats my lifestyle since i starting working remotely. As summer is coming, trees are blossoming, fresh and clean air. My client is pretty impressed with my productivity and most of our e-meetings are held while we all sit in our gardens (most of the team is remote).
Or to put it short: Why do I have to switch my lunch group, just because I switch the employer. Remote does not mean you have to stay alone or with family all day.
I still looking forward to going back to normal. I've never been the social butterfly who sees tons of friends on a regular basis out of work, and yet I enjoy talking to others. Work gives me that, lunch at work gives me that too.
Some of my colleagues are razor smart. I can have lunch time discussions about rocketry or special video coding algorithms or War time cryptography, just random interesting stuff that I'd never have otherwise.
Working at home has some benefits, but how many times do you really use that swimming pool?
Re pool, i occasionally jump in during breaks, just enough to refresh my mind and have a clear view over why that microservice is misbehaving. I only started working remote 1.5 years ago and it may be the excitement of something new, but i am loving it thus far!
But we have kids, and it gets hot as hell here, so summer after-work activities usually involves something with water.
I think there's a lot of day to day work that is more productive at home but in an ideal world, you could have the best of both worlds.
I think people get stuck in the mental construct of "office = socializing" therefore "no office = antisocial". But thats not the case. If you could eliminate the 1 hour of wasted time daily on small talk and office distractions, as well as the 1 hour daily on commuting, that leaves you two extra hours a day of your life to focus on whatever you chose.
You can join a club, pick a new hobby, learn a new language, volunteer or even start a revolution. Be as social or not social as you want, but the beauty of it is that thats time you have complete freedom over. I choose that over contrived interactions with a random set of people who happened to do enough Leetcode problems to get in the same room as you.
Of course you could tell them to STFU (perhaps in a more professional vernacular) but that can be difficult to do if you're not an assertive or confident person.
Async audio/video tools like Yac, Loom; those are the next wave.
VR will follow after that.
For many of us, a workplace is a very small piece of our consciousness, and thus, the amount of shared interest with colleagues is bleak.
But I'd like to mention that it seems like a few people are forgetting about how they met their friends in the first place -- for a vast majority of us, the answer is school, something we sort of had no choice over and were sort of forced into. I participate in quite a few forums and sub-Reddits, but how many of them turn into actual real connections beyond the digital ones is slim.
Secondly, in response to those that want to only choose who they want to hang out with -- the flip-side of that is group-think and echo-chamber-ism by not subjecting oneself to orthogonal perspectives...
Lastly, as people in technology, we have choices about where to work -- find a place that works on something that you like with people that you like. I have a hard time empathizing with those that say, "we don't have a choice". Yes, getting a job, as a dev can be a grind, but imagine being a musician or an artist or an architect. Honestly, people in tech have it best -- in all other fields you're absolutely stuck and we're here bitching about WFH policies...
My family likes to joke that they can tell who my former coworkers are or online friends because they call me jedberg instead of Jeremy.
I am not saying I hate social interaction. If I had to chose between being locked in my basement and not seeing anyone and going to the office, I would chose the office. However, if the choice is between more time and freedom outside of work vs more in office interactions, then I chose the former.
Again though, if you are the type of person that highly values that in-office camaraderie, you are free to join a coworking space and get that. You can still commute and ask your deskmate how your day went.
Im not like that though - I like to wake up early, get my work done, and spend my afternoons rock climbing with a different group of people who are my close friends. The value I get out of this is way higher than building (often) superficial relationships with my coworkers.
Thats the nice thing about working remotley - you can pick what you do with your time. Forcing everyone to indulge in office socialization just because some people enjoy it is a disservice to those who don't.
My ability to feign interest in your baby pictures does not in any way indicate my ability to deliver a sprint task.
Different projects and organizations vary, but I've been on teams where a "brillant" but anti-social person left (or was ejected) and seen overall throughput for the team shoot up. And I've seen people brand new to coding (and without much skill in it) still deliver value rapidly because they are relentless communicators. I've stopped valuing the former and started valuing the later.
Not all cultures are like this. I had a German coworker who would always complain about how much time we spend socializing at work (while socializing with us).
He would tell us, "In Germany, we come to work, we put our heads down for seven hours and work, then we all go out and spend two hours drinking beer together before we go home to our families".
>> we all go out and spend two hours drinking beer together before we go home to our families
and
> in comparison, american work culture feels extremely centered around social interactions
I mean, when I worked at eBay in San Francisco, going around to bars after work -- more than once a week -- was the expected way to socialize with your coworkers. I didn't participate, but that meant I didn't connect to the rest of the team. I didn't find the idea that people in Germany do the same thing to be much of a stretch.
British work culture: spend 7 hours at work socializing, 2 hours at the pub after
French work culture: spend 2 hours at work socializing
Japanese work culture: spend 12 hours at work with your head down not working, then 5 hours at the pub
Definitely not the case here in Berlin. All of my jobs here had plenty of post-work socialising, some even obligatory.
During work itself, people also tend to spend a lot of time in "kitchen area" or browsing Facebook, chatting on WhatsApp etc.
The "put our heads down for hours" thing is not something I have ever observed.
Maybe the culture has shifted since then.
My experience in the military supports this argument. I have a few life long friends through this experience. Some of which I disliked initially.
Although, I do agree with the spirit of GP 's argument. You don't have to be in the office to be social and you get so much of your time back it's hard to justify the time cost if the value proposition is small talk.
People who define themselves through their work are depressing and need to wake up.
The old future is cancelled. Good. It was a bad future.
Case in point, I'm an introvert in every way: hate going to loud places like bars to socialize, prefer chatting with small number of friends in a quiet setting, prefer staying home reading , think Americans' obsession with sports is insane (not that I don't like sports. I myself was reasonably athletic and was in school's track and field team for years), can't understand why students in school were so obsessed with being popular... You get the idea. Yet I'm still more productive in office, still prefer 1-on-1s in person, and still miss the days when I worked with my co-workers on a whiteboard.
Without choice, people can grow on each other. With friends, we move on if it becomes difficult. With coworkers we have an opportunity for personal growth. In a way, coworkers are more like family than friends.
I read this as an opportunity to act like someone you're not, aka, conformity. With friends, I can be myself, and surround myself with people I actually like, vs trying to convince myself to like people that I'm around.
The personal growth comes from accepting somebody else the way he is.
Friends on the other hand, also choose. So if I want to spend time with them I have to conform to joined values. It's a non-issue most of the times because friends are chosen among people with similar values. Still, when it comes to conformity, it's the friendship that depends on it.
There's a very strong correlation between how much we like someone and how similar they are to us. We like people with shared values and hobbies and opinions on important topics. Our friend group has a tendency towards homogeneity unless we actively try to avoid it.
If we assume that diversity of thought is a good thing, being forced into situations where you can't choose the people who will surround you (school, college, workplace) is probably a good thing. Seeing things from the perspective of folks different from us is the personal growth GP was talking about.
This is probably the crux of making someone likeable or not.
> If we assume that diversity of thought is a good thing
I don't really care what other people think.
> Seeing things from the perspective of folks different from us is the personal growth GP was talking about.
When did everyone start earning these self-help merit badges for themselves?
Rather than feeling like statues that live in an office and turn to stone at 5PM, only to reawaken the next morning, my colleagues actually feel more like human beings in this config.
How often will differ from employee to employee obviously.
My hope is that once this settle down companies that are able to have employees work from home without a negative impact to performance allow them to do so freely.
> If you could eliminate the 1 hour of wasted time daily
This is it. Without self-driving cars this is the most important present you can give to a worker. What would you pay for an additional hour a day?
This assumes that work expectations won’t expand to fill the space. I’ve kept pretty strict 9am to 6pm work from home with a 1 hour offline break to eat and clean and I still find the expectations creeping in, especially since some coworkers have migrated to other time zones to be with family.
Overall, given the history of labor in the US, I am sceptical that we will see an opening up of free time because of this shift.
WFH will strip 'friendship creation factor' from work. Definitely not to zero, but it will in effect reduce fun from work because 'working with friends' will be less often (unless you start work with people you're already friend).
The issue is not that you can't or won't develop work-friends on a distributed team, its that those work-friends have difficulty translating to "not work friends" because they may be in a different state/country than you and can't come over for a pizza and beer afterwards.
IMHO, the difference between a "work friend" and a "friendly relationship with a colleague" is "do you frequently disengage from work to socialize together." For instance: taking breaks together to chit-chat. I can't see how someone you're in "repeated regular meetings" with could quality as a work friend, unless those meetings are not work related.
I chit-chat with colleagues too, but they're not work-friends because it's usually in the context of doing work (e.g. a few minutes of friendly small talk before we get down to business).
A work-friend is someone you go hang out with just to hang out or talk with just to talk. The main difference with a friend-friend is that doesn't happen outside of the workplace or work events.
[I think it's from From Better off Ted]
I've probably been brainwashed by "popular culture" and the "corporate narrative" that they prob wanna push on us. I'm in my early 30s and my hobby is to build things, I've always loved that, now mostly software, but also hardware electronics etc. My biggest dream is to have something like General Magic or early Apple or some other startup building something crazy with a small group of people that are brilliant and driven.
Again this is probably just because I've been brainwashed, but I really don't see that scenario playing out over a Zoom call for instance: a brainstorming session on a whiteboard where everyone is excited and trying to solve a huge challenge together, building on each others ideas etc; It's right now just not how our zoom calls usually plays out.
I'm all for anyone being able to work remotely, and picking talents from wherever they might be, but I just don't hope this is 100% of what the future will look like.
First, that's a nice way to respect your coworkers that they are a random set of people who work with you because of their Leetcode skills.
Having work relationships is much more than get a PR reviewed, or asking for feedback on documents. Working together, involves interactions that humanizes your fellow co-workers. Since, I've worked with people before, now that we have to remote collaborate I understand the social cues, people can come stand-offish or rude, in remote meetings, because video and voice calls can rarely bring out emotions.
We went from cracking a jokes at the beginning of a meeting and chit-chat while walking to meeting and walking back from meeting rooms to more formal remote meetings, since people are concerned that they won't be interpreted correctly over a call (the fear is rightly so given video calls are inherently bad at this)
There's no reason to detest your colleagues, they're people with priorities and one of them is work. There's going to be weeks where you'll be spending way longer than 8 hrs a day together and nights where you will need to call them in the because of an ongoing issue in production. To dehumanize these relationships would be a great loss.
If you want to build long lasting friendships, you can definitely do that at work. I know people who have made friends on same and different teams, through work related happy hours and hangout casually now (meeting people outside your team is severely crippled with the current remote work culture), heck people get married to people they meet at work.
There's practical reasons for that. Socialization centered at school transitions easily to socialization centered at work. Also, probably for the worse, many people have few connections to communities independent of work/school. Creating those connections can be difficult, and many of the modern solutions to this problem are aren't very good (e.g. various relationship-shopping apps like "online dating").
If you were a doctor, you would still know your community fairly well; whether they be a farmer or another blue collar worker. As we've replaced the prominence of community based institutions such as churches with elite institutions (primarily colleges and workplaces), we've isolated lots of people who aren't able to participate in these communities (due to many inequalities). Obviously these previous community institutions had major flaws (racism/sexism), but they still provided a shared experience that makes a diverse and broad social group easier.
In practice we might just end up working longer hours.
That most corporations fail at it doesn't mean it's not the ideal
Having said that, I'm not one of those folks, and I actually agree with your points and I am 100% for remote. I am at a remote role right now and could not be happier.
Even the fact that business relationships are fairly shallow - all the more reason for the businesses themselves to encourage them.
Even before COVID I invested in a height adjustable desk, ergo chair, adjustable led lighting and a decent monitor for my home office. It’s made a huge difference.
I personally like that I can’t have hallway interruptions and can be intentional about my meeting cadence, frequency and focus time.
Sure I might put in a couple extra hours here and there but I’m also not spending those hours commuting anymore.
The only viable option would be to move out from the city, but then I loose all the other benefits from living here.
(Of course the total cost is the same or higher today, but it's taken by the employer. It's not compleeetley unthinkable that the employer would compensate me for it, but it get's really tricky really fast. I would probably have to pay taxes for the extra salary, and how much "rent" would they pay? Are new grads supposed to work from their kitchen table, or far away just to afford an extra room?)
Similarly, centralized corporate real estate is not going to be as in demand as it once was. This will take decades maybe, but it's easy to imagine some of these buildings getting converted to residences, increasing the supply (and therefore decreasing the costs of rent).
Instead of 3-4k/month for a downtown studio in NYC, you might see 2k/month. It'll take us a while to get there.
Conversely, one might reasonably expect suburban rents to jump up, as city-dwellers move there.
For example, part of what make SF or NYC a desirable location for opening a restaurant or bar (despite the high rents) are the respective cities proximity to high income wage earners and companies.
Take those factors away and the superstar cities of the world (NYC, London, etc.) become as desirable as your average city in the middle of the country.
Companies used to provide lot of benefit allowances for using personal items, space and time for company work like, home office, equipment, personal car, phone, on-call, education and training, etc. Slowly, slowly these benefits have been discontinued for everyone, except top executives, in the name of cost savings for the company, and such costs were shifted to employees. Based on such history of taking away benefits from rank and file and giving to top corporate executives, I doubt any of the corporate cost savings from WFH will go to employees.
There are a million and one examples I can think of, of companies repackaging burdens as perks while cynically using progressive reasoning to convince people to go along with it. Unlimited PTO, for example. Unlimited PTO is not unlimited, it's limited by whatever your boss gives you permission for. So say it's de-facto limited at 3 weeks. If you had explicit PTO of 3 weeks per year:
* It's a lot harder for your boss to arbitrarily stop you from taking it, especially if the year is almost over and you haven't taken it yet * If you don't take, it, they're legally obligated to pay it out
But when it's "unlimited"
* Boss mysteriously rejects it, or puts arbitrary constraints like "no more than 3 days contiguous" * If you don't take it, it's gone
I'm at a big (Google/Microsoft/Amazon) workplace and WFH has always been a last-resort thing. I can't even imagine my team moving toward this. Every day I do too many things in the office that are face-to-face. Drop by the architect to get an opinion about XYZ, drop by a PM to ask about their functional spec, drop by a coworker to ask about some comments they left on my PR. Get three people in a room to go over an ongoing incident that's impacting a major customer's operations.
All these things could be pings/video calls, but having done that for a few months now, it's just not as effective as being there.
I wonder if the "WFH" discussion on HN is simply silicon-valley wishful thinking, if it's only possible for highly independent contractors and startup-hopping tech bros, and if it will never actually work in a large workplace environment.
The added friction of having someone jump on a call vs sending a slack message and stopping by my desk has resulted in a lot more tedious PR reviews where you end up having to explain your approach with a wall of text and then still having to jump on a call and re-explain the same things in more depth.
Other users have mentioned white-boards and brainstorming sessions .. those are harder to replicate but still.
1/ The tools/processes/humans can only get better at it
2/ It will cost the companies much much less to have remote employees, so even if each individual employee get less done it is still worth it.
I encourage even stupid questions but in written form. Myself when writing questions half of then doesn't make sense (I find answer when formulating question). From other ones at least whole team learns.
To make remote/async work one needs to discourage priv communication but encourage threads.
Do y'all feel that a trend towards remote work benefits mid/senior level employees at the cost of the development of junior employees ?
IMO, it is the same difference as in-person schooling vs online schools. As convenient as WFH is, it really isn't conducive to hands on mentorship.
Tech companies might not mind it, since the attrition rate in tech at the junior level is incredibly high anyway.
I think that investors are going to be moving their money out of commercial real estate, and into residential.
Edit: to be clear: I don't live in the Bay Area, and I think the housing prices there could go either way:
1) People spend more time in their homes and spend an even larger portion of their income on their home. Having a "good" home becomes even more important since you spend even more time there, and prices go up even more.
2) People just leave the bay area. Residential prices go down in the bay area.
But there is a whole world out there that doesn't include SF, and I think that just generally speaking you're going to see an increase in residential home values as investors look for safe places to place their money outside of commercial real estate.
I would have guessed folks would just start leaving...
If investors want to move into that market, they are nuts. I don't think you can extract any more money from residents than the current market is already doing. It's one more reason not to buy a house here - how much more do you think prices will rise? Will that $1.5M, 1400 sq ft house full of lead paint, asbestos and aluminum wiring go for $2M next year? Probably not.
Aren't salaries different in different locations? (ie. same company with offices in Vancouver Canada vs Seattle vs SF?) I've heard they are...
If pay was purely about talent, everyone would be paid the same.
At least, that is what was explained by a friend of mine that decided to stay at the Venice office - that it's easier to advance in all ways if you work in the Bay Area.
Really? It doesn't seem to be this way to me. The academic requirements are, I believe, the same: a degree. I think in the US you also need a job offer (for H1B), but that hasn't been hard to get for a software engineer in the last 10 years.
The real "bar" for US immigration is a hard limit on visas, which are resolved via lottery. Your "ability" on winning a lottery doesn't say much about your talent for engineering.
Note: I moved from Europe to the Bay Area, I'm a bit familiar with the process.
There's also a lot of workers that simply can't pass the bar due to the Requests For Evidences required by the US government. As an European from, what I assume, a legitimate university you wouldn't experience those issues. Most of the folks who fail at this step will have back-up petitions filled at one of the satellite locations in Canada.
Right but I think many people just publish one paper at an international conference (they're all international) and then say 'look I'm an internationally published and peer-recognised expert'.
This is why London jobs are not paid more than SF - the "market rate" in London is lower despite living costs being the same or more than SF (especially when in London none of the FAANGs offer free transport to and from work and property prices are so much higher near transport hubs).
Market rates are murky - I guess it is based on competition and who employs in the area. There is some sort of shared database that loads of companies use from what I understand, but they are flawed since they don't include a lot of high-paying employers in finance et al.
High pay requires a competitive job market (employer can't find anyone else to do it to the same standard for less) in a profit making industry (it's worth staying in a line of business even with higher wage costs.)
Honestly I'm quite surprised how little salaries at big tech companies vary by location within the same country. The bigger difference seems to be in opportunities for career advancement with more post-senior roles available at head offices.
Looked at another way, "talented people" are often smart enough to realize that if they do get the same salary, they net a lot more if they live elsewhere.
You're looking at 160K gross for a new grad + the value of the various perks, and that doubles for someone with 5 years of experience. You're correct that for someone who wishes to own a home right out of school/within a year, the bay may not be the best choice (although working there for a year or two and then moving elsewhere probably is), but there are basically no other places where a SWE in their mid twenties can bank 100K a year after expenses.
I agree that "new grad" is the best case for being in the BA. Once you're ten or fifteen years into your career and have a wife and kids, the downsides of the BA are far more painful. And if you didn't spend those ten or fifteen years building up capital while living in the BA, moving there later can be all but impossible. That talent is simply not accessible to BA companies unless it's remote.
All that said, my point that given the same salary, or even a modestly smaller one, you net more if you're not paying for housing in the BA.
Oh you're right I'm so sorry :P
> All that said, my point that given the same salary, or even a modestly smaller one, you net more if you're not paying for housing in the BA.
Ah, I somehow missed the (emphasized) do in your original sentence. I'll just leave now.
This is as silly as competing for men, or competing for US citizens, or competing for 22-32 year-olds. Demographics like that have very little power compared to testing for relevant skills, or having a visible track record.
the cities and towns themselves aren't spectacular though. I mean there are more spectacular ones to immerse yourself into if you are really just trying to relocate somewhere intersting
But seriously, after seeing some nasty employee outcomes over a few jobs it kind of raises the "sleezy car salesman" flags when I hear it now. Like my emotional triggers (family) are being used to get me to comply (dont quit the company, sign the offer, work 80 hours with no overtime). It irks me even more when I see people new to the industry eat it up.
I saw a bunch of it recently in social media from college graduates. Lots of companies who signed new talent promising the offers are just on pause and telling candidates they have a start date in 3 months. And then watching people actually believe it because they've been brainwashed in the interview by the "family" mentality. It just made me really sad about how manipulative workplaces can be.
So for younger folks out there. Don't drink the cool-aid and don't buy into all these family/social bs. Always think about your interests first. And be ready to move on when your work is no longer beneficial for you.
I dunno, mine certainly does. My family extends only to where they're no longer toxic in my life. When they intrude and become a negative influence, I cut them out.
My gripe with the antagonistic "work is not your family" approach is it sends the signal that the people I meet at work will never be my family. That kind of sucks. Sure, corporations cutting people out aren't very familial, but there are other humans at the core and some of those coworkers do care if I get fired or am having personal issues. Unilaterally casting them out as a machine to further my personal interests is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This seems like a safe assumption? I guess you can marry a couple coworkers in the course of a career but how else are they going to become family?
I don't see that as antagonistic. Work isn't your family. The purpose and circumstances are entirely different. It doesn't mean throw all your coworkers under a bus but the relationship is fundamentally different.
Still, I don’t think “work is not your family” is antagonistic and I don’t think it implies you can’t form meaningful relationships with your coworkers. I interpret it from the other direction more like “don’t expect your coworkers to be your family”.
On one level there's my "real", immediate family (my spouse, my children). On another level there's my "real" extended family (parents, other blood relatives). On yet another level there's my "adopted" family (close friends, their children, etc.)
It's pretty easy to see certain coworkers moving into the adopted family category.
Most of the people I work with are highly ambitious and globally mobile. Our average tenure is something like a year. People who have been at the company for two years are veterans. Forming friendships in that situation is difficult because at this point many of those people have moved away for greener pastures.
Most of my friends are people I met trough my extracurricular social circles. Personally I like that almost all of my friends have different jobs in different fields. There's never work talk in social settings and I get a more diverse perspective on the world.
That sounds like a highly irregular company. My last company, which wasn't very big (<100), had half a dozen people who had been there 15+ years. The majority had been there 3+. A bunch of us would go out for a group lunch nearly every Friday (not organized by management). We'd do group Halloween costumes and wear them to the office. People would have game nights at their houses and invite people over.
I realize that my anecdote is probably also outside of the norm, but I just wanted to illustrate how wide the range is.
I used to work at a <100 person company and most of those people had been there for years and a decade was common. I had a few friends there but those relationships stagnated immediately after I left.
I've worked at a lot of companies over the years and there are two people I consider friends today that I met at work. Everyone else I consider a friend is a person I met through social circles.
With that being said, I've made some of my best friends in boring coding jobs that only promised me money in exchange for work. It's funny now that people I'm friends from other jobs have met and mixed, that I don't even remember who I worked with where or what the hell we even did.
I was working with awesome people and had tons of fun as a particular tourist resort exploded in popularity (and revenue) while us workers only saw union minimum wage increases along a massive work stress with the increased work. We all justified still working there because we had fun with our work buddies, which was promptly exploited by upper management that had us work more for less money.
The moral of this story is: Don’t get blinded by good work culture. We still have our rights and demands as workers.
The more correct analogy is a sports team. Everyone works well together to win the medal, but it's much more pragmatic in that sense.
Perhaps back in the age of B&W TV, when people could spend their entire life with a company, it was sort of more true. You had that one job, you had your pension. It was really like a second family, an getting let go was like death.
I am beginning to see that nowadays, even full time jobs are becoming essentially contract gigs with better benefits. You should treat it as such anyway. Be professional, be good at what you do, but also be detached and non-emotional about it. It can end at any second.
What you take from a job is not that you were "like a family". What you take from it is the experience, what you have learned from your own mistakes, and most importantly - friendships. The rest is ephemeral like a docker container. Be ready for it to go POOF.
That said, culture shouldn't be forced. I think employees should be given multiple ways to participate to find a way that is most comfortable to them.
An additional challenge for me is that I don't like the taste of alcohol, and having even a little makes me do/say things that I later regret.
So even when I do show up at company social events, I feel even more like an outsider. It's hard to stay engaged at a job where all of these team-building events / milestone-celebrations make me feel lonely and excluded.
I actually had to push back on our in-office boozy happy hours because a few team members were getting too drunk and it was making other people uncomfortable. My boss didn't think it'd seem "cool" if we put together a policy for how these happy hours should be handled. I don't work there anymore. :)
I still distinctly feel different whenever a VP or higher level manager joins, but when it's just my team it's a lot more comfortable and has led to a lot of friendships that extend beyond our working relationship.
My main takeaway was: fair enough, and when can I get into that interview pipeline.
I want to be on a meat-eating, high performing team with comp to match, and I don't want much more. I think most in the industry are the same.
Having been on [edit: sports] teams before, it can be a toxic situation or it can be absolutely amazing and life-affirming. It might sound cold in the language, but it can be so rewarding, so bonding. It's definitely a better analogy than family. Family is family. You can define it as you like, but nothing equates.
Shared hardship and superior performance that is greater than the sum of a team's individual talents are tremendous motivators and a dominant source of personal fulfillment.
There's a bit of a challenge to get people to seek this environment out, but setting the tone from the top, as Netflix does, is a Step 0 to achieving it.
Ultimately, sports is different just like family is different and the way those things work relate to those differences. Sports is objective. Work isn't. Managers, players & spectators all know if they're playing in the A-league or the local league. In workplace culture, implying that you're not in the A-league is taboo. Remember that "elite" means very rare, and usually short lived.
People seek out, form, or join teams basically wherever they go, in whatever they do. While every team has an introvert, every team has a lead that works to pull the introvert into the fold. This is largely the "leaders/managers self identify themselves." Or, the introvert that strikes on on their own to do their own thing? Well if they're good..... they end up forming a team to support it.
It's not about knowing you're on the A-league or not, or implying it or not. That issue, while you're correct about the taboo nature of implying one's team is anything less-than, is very besides the point.
It's about how individuals time after time find fulfillment from performing at your (company, in this case) local optimum, with a hearty dose of feelings and actuality of personal autonomy, lack of micromanagement, clear standards that are just far enough of a stretch to be able to be met, etc. The nerdiest of nerds on a CTF team or hackathon will give each other a high five. In turn, to your point, the best players will seek out better teams.
It's a primordial behavior, we all do it. There's a wealth of organizational/leadership science out there. It's a fun read that unlike many social sciences, actually has a pretty well proven lemmas behind it, which control for personality types across the spectrum. The military is a one great source of this, flat orgs are another, and everything in between still displays the same behavior (for orgs that do "well"). The behavior and incentives of A->Z people in high performing, high satisfaction environments tend to be very similar, just the implementation is a little different depending on specific org charts.
I didn't mean to imply that we don't work in, join or even thrive in "teams." I meant the elite sports team analogy is a bad idea, usually. That's the analogy I netflix is going for, I believe. They meant it in that context, as you said:
There's no shame in getting cut, and you should be proud that you had the talent to perform at our level for the time you did.
All this has to be thought of as a management philosophy, because that's what it is. A Theory Of How We Do Things Here." Most os the time, work isn't sports-like. Objectivity is one fundamental difference, and actually running things like a sports team requires it. Hackathons are done to create sports-like scenarios on occasion. Trying to go past that, objectivity ends up biting you. ... you'll end up with productivity measures or some other low-autonomy management style.
This was my point about taboo. It's an example of reality leaking into the metaphor, making it unsustainable. Companies mostly don't operate in objective scenarios. Contribution is very difficult to ascertain, especially for the kind of work that requires elite performance.
Ultimately, a sports team is the way it is because of what it is. A team of artists shouldn't try to organise like a team of rowers or a software team like a sales team.
Incidentally, many sales teams run exactly like netflix aspires to... and without much effort. Their reality is objective. A 10X salesman can actually earn 10X, like an elite athlete does. There are elite teams and it is prestigious to have a stint there, even though most don't last.
My main takeaway is: they sound a bit bloody full of themselves.
Not for everyone though.
My last manager interviewed with them and said they gave him a 90+ frame PowerPoint on “the Netflix way“.
Levels.fyi says the average compensation is...450k. But that's for the entire software engineer job ladder, so it's probably skewed upwards somewhat. Still, a median of 250-350k would still be a ton of money.
For all the talk of "talent" in this industry, it doesn't work like a talent industry. Where engineers do earn major salaries, it's usually on account of the managerial element and not the engineering one.
Lawyering is a talent industry, for example. Top lawyers in top firms do earn on a scale as disparate as pro athletes. The top lawyers may manage people, but their high salaries are for lawyering. The creative industries work that way, obviously.
Engineering is structurally more like accounting.
Or have a shitty family. A lot of “black sheep” out there are actually the relatively normal ones.
OTOH... our gut-definition of teams is a pretty tight group working very cooperatively. It definitely doesn't feel right to describe Microsoft as a "team," family or whatever.
Anyway, I disagree... kinda. I agree that "We are a family" is bullshit, but I don't think "detached and non-emotional" is a viable strategy. We humans can't be detached and unemotional about such a major thing in our life. That road leads to misery.... which is where a lot of us are in our work lives.
You say that like having a business degree is almost something to be ashamed of, or a lesser degree relative to perhaps "computer engineers" and "computer scientists"
I'm not sure if I'm in total agreement or in total opposition.
Family is an analogy... At the scale of many of our workplaces "tribe" might be more fitting. I'm also note convinced people quite believe it... It's more that they're learning the language of their new social structure, whether that's "team," or "family" or whatnot.
In any case, it's suspicious that we're using analogies here at all. Workplaces, usually a company, are the main social institutions of our society. Only the family rivals it. Why do we need analogies to describe workplace the relationship?
I agree that it's not a family. What is it though? A purely transactional definition doesn't work in this context. Your workplace is not your bank. You don't have to be emotionally vested in your bank. You can't avoid being emotionally vested in your workplace in a psychologically sound way.
So... going to the OP's point somewhat... Something is very broken, socially, in the thing we call companies. It's often unpleasant and for many people this lockdown is a reprieve.
I think work from home, as a norm, is a move towards a more transactional relationship with work. This may be better than whatever sucks about your workplace, but it's also got problems. We spend so much of our lives working. A minimalist relationship may not be enough.
I think I disagree though. I don't think it's replaceable, unless we're replacing work. With remote work we'll be replacing office culture with online office culture, not hobbies. I suspect they'll inherit some of the problems.
Where we spend huge amounts of time interacting with others that we never choose is what most of our major social structures are. Family, tribe, village, parish.
Work happens to be our most important social structure besides family. It the one that grants you your privileges and titles, so to speak. You can't just replace it with a hobby. Hobby's take much less of your time and have much lower stakes. To be more engaged with what's going in a minor part of your life than a major one.... it's not healthy, IMO.
I'm not crying over office culture getting lost. We can't get rid of it, that's the problem.
Research in industrial psychology consistently demonstrates that managers are extremely hesitant to fire workers, particularly when the human welfare costs are high.[1] They'll consistently keep workers employed well past the point where it's economically justified.
So, I'd say for most people co-workers are not "family". But it's certainly a closer human social bond than an arms length economic transaction in most circumstances.
[1]https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/06/firing_aversion_2.h...
I can tell off-color jokes around my real family. I censor the ever-loving hell out of myself when I'm with my "work" family. I talk about work, and nothing else.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66966-they-fuck-you-up-your...
Before the pandemic started, I was counting down the days to my retirement. But now, I'm actually enjoying my work a lot more. And during my 20s, I would have been absolutely ecstatic to be able to travel the world, while still working a full-time job.
To any non-FANG company: take note. You don't have the same level of prestige, and you certainly don't offer the same level of compensation. So how do you stand out in the job market, and attract the best candidates? Giving people the option to work remotely, is your best bet of ever competing with the FANGs.
permanent: lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
indefinitely: for an unlimited or unspecified period of time.
forever: for all future time; for always.
Permanent just means we don't know when some condition will change; contrast with temporary where we do know when it will change.
Forever means it won't ever change under any circumstances.
For example: a magnetized iron nail is a temporary magnet and will lose its magnetism over a predictable amount of time; a permanent magnet can be demagnetized, but otherwise should continue to be magnetic indefinitely; a forever magnet is not a real thing.
(We realized it wasn't worth the rent, and gave it up after about 6 months.)
Some of those years were very travel heavy -- fullish time on the road -- but for the last 10 client travel has vanished in favor of GoToMeeting conferences.
I love it. I love the flexibility of it, I love not having a commute, and I love not having dry cleaning bills anymore. The music in my office is whatever I want. If I feel like it, I can catch a nap. And I love being able to eat at home, where one can make MUCH healthier choices.
People SAY they'd miss the water cooler, but in my whole career I've only had co-workers I really really liked on a social level in one company. It's rare.
My current employer -- where I've been for almost 13 years, which shocks me -- is entirely virtual. We have no office space anywhere, and the closest other employee to me is about 4 hours away by car. I have colleagues that, until recently, I'd never even seen a picture of.
I get that not everyone is constitutionally able to do this. I came to it from heavy travel (even pre-2001), so I was used to working in weird places (hotel rooms or lobbies; airport bars; frequent-flier clubs; taxis) already, and I think that made it easier.
I also get that it's not even appropriate for everyone, and that our success at my current company is tied to the fact that we have never had "entry level" developers. I think it'd be super hard to mentor and acculturate and teach this way.
But as for me, at this point I'd have a very hard time going back to an office.
Companies showed that it's possible to have great office culture even remotely. My company started food/drinks tasting events, small pockets of communities developed around hobbies like video-games and slack got a complete revamp. It has been a real joy!
Right now I'm not sure I don't see any benefits of working in an office other than:
* Sense of inherit accomplishment: I sat here for 8 hours == I did things. Which is of course kinda silly but remote suffers from accomplishment perception issues since you don't have that office sacrifice that you can always fall back to.
* People are fun, and people are more fun in person! Especially in modern offices with ping-pong tables, bean bags and taco tuesdays.
Remote working as a norm is the breakthrough that society needs.
Time spent with family, commuting cancelled, train, roads, busses, tubes reduced - if it doesn’t happen now, the next pandemic will.
The vibe that comes off is more of a social hangout club than a serious tech company. You meet your friend for lunch and there's professional chefs cooking gourmet meals, you hang out in the social area while the celebrity of the day comes into the office and everyone takes pictures with them. There's breakout rooms where people are filming marketing videos. The people that are hanging out talking to celebrities all day are making $200,000+ somehow. Anyone with right of center political views is casually censored from the platform with no recourse, because it's a "cool social hangout platform" not a serious technology product with mature guidelines of what acceptable speech is and formalized appeals processes. There won't be any productivity loss from everyone going remote because nobody is doing real work anyway.
I've been having very productive conversations with someone on twitter whom I'm pretty sure is a Catholic fundamentalist. I'm specifically following a few other accounts because the provide outside-filter-bubble views, and they're all rather further than "right of center." Haven't heard a peep from any of them about Twitter censorship.
TL;DR: Not sure what you're talking about here.
That's just not true - Donald Trump hasn't been "casually censored", neither have any of the GOP representatives who have Twitter accounts.
If you say abhorrent stuff, then yes, their platform, and they can say "you're not welcome here", but just look at the cesspit of comments on the recent "gate" hashtag and you'll see there are MANY right of center (some cases miles right of center) voices on there.
You have a persecution complex. Almost every conservative political figure and media personality has a twitter account that they post regularly on. Only a small number of abusive psychos (e.g. Milo) have been banned for breaking Twitter rules.
As someone half/two-thirds of whose twitter reading is right of center/right wing people, I find this comment perplexing?
As a result, I would guess a lot of Twitter's engineers are working on infrastructure, internal tooling, and moderation.
Regarding your example, doubling the size of a tweet, that was probably more work than one dev writing ALTER TABLE tweets MODIFY tweet_text VARCHAR(280). In fact, I don't know if you were around 20 years ago or so, but there was a similarly scoped project to double the number of digits we were storing the year in. ;)
One other benefit to companies - maybe they won’t pay a premium anymore for people who live in expensive areas.
Domestically, it only gets complicated when you have an entire office of people in a different zone. Then large meetings get hard to schedule around lunch and COB.
Personally, I find it pretty funny how this "work that can only be done well in person, in an office" can suddenly be done remotely no problem when the government mandates that everybody stays home.
You're spinning things toward your bias with your sentence. Who, exactly, is saying it can be done "no problem"? My experience is that any communication-intensive work is significantly harder and more time consuming. We just don't have a choice now, so we're doing it.
My XP is that remote communication is different, seem to take longer, but is also far superior. When you're forced to communicate via documents, diagrams, chat, etc you put more effort into your content. You try to anticipate questions to avoid wasting a few round trips. It forces you to think more about what you're saying, it forces you to think about edge cases, specific details, etc.
That's fine. I would like to explicitly point out that calling something the "usual" argument doesn't make it any less valid. You are both claiming to not bother arguing while also taking a fairly dismissive posture. My feedback is to instead ask people why they feel a certain way. I'll answer as though you had:
For your point about clarity and organization of written communication: I completely agree with you. I suspect you're an IC engineer without many non-technical responsibilities, though, because you're ignoring all things that exist outside of technical design and planning intended for technical audiences.
Not everything is well suited to diagrammed or long-cycle asynchronous communication. At some point in your career, you might need to start handling things like working with lawyers on requirements where they have varying degrees of product understanding, nuanced feedback from a large sales team, tough and iterative product roadmap decisions in the face of revenue shortfalls, personnel issues as they come up, and so on. For conversations that span disciplines or involve career development or crucial feedback, having a high bandwidth pipe through which to quickly identify gaps in understanding or holes in communication is invaluable. That higher level coordination is vital to the success of most businesses, and it became significantly more challenging. We have to do it, though, because the alternative is much worse.
My opinion is that remote work has been great for IC engineers. I generally support liberal use of remote work for IC engineers. The world doesn't work if everybody sits in that role, though.
Great. I stand corrected when I suspected you were an IC.
Do you have the same non-technical responsibilities I mentioned having? How have you approached the portions that I cited as being challenging without high-bandwidth communication channels? And if you have you held this role in a non-remote office, how do you know whether you're being as effective as you were then? (I always like to hear more about how people measure their effectiveness.)
This was exactly what happened with my company. When I was hired, three people in the interview process stated explicitly that remote work was not an option, and don't even ask.
Then when the state shut down, suddenly it was perfectly fine for hundreds of people to take their work computers home.
-- Reduction of commute, which is good for the environment and good for people's stress levels.
-- Reduction/elimination of the cost of office space
-- Ability to recruit across a wider geographic area
-- Greater employee satisfaction as people can live where they choose
And so on and so on. And yet in the face of this information, plus studies that show higher rates of productivity when employees / workers control their work environment (and schedule), companies have been resistant. I can speculate on the reasons for this (read: control, stuck in industrial era management practices, etc), but the question remains: why do we think companies will suddenly become enlightened and embrace this long-term?
As for why now? I believe it's simply because now that peons have had a taste of WFH and all its benefits (and realized everything you enumerated), it will become one of the most desired "benefit" in a job. It was a massive leap forward from WFH being a "nice to have" to a "must have" to even be considered by a lot of candidates.
The trigger event was the forced experiment. Studies convinced me, but I don't have to take responsibility for the health of a whole company so it's easier for me to advocate for risks. Seeing how your company actually behaves in a 100% WFH world is better evidence than a study.
The evidence already existed that WFH is, generally, better. See Stanford's Bloom 2013.
But executives are afraid to take big risks like that. They doubt studies. They overindex on personal experience. Which this gave them.
Now that they see what WFH actually produces, their worldview shifts to what was already true. You get talent that's more productive. Lower costs so you can afford more talent, or, alternatively, more expensive talent. Fewer geographic restrictions so you can recruit a bigger pool of talent.
Once you're convinced WFH works, these advantages can give competition an edge. An executive doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that edge.
But they have to see it first.
There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is, and currently no evidence suggests that is true.
c19 has given people an experience of "almost everyone WFH and the company didn't end".
"There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is". It IS better for some people individually - we see it here on HN in comments from people who prefer to be able to go to an office. There isn't a "one size fits all" approach.
To the extent that we see more WFH across the board, I think it'll be driven far more by "get rid of the office expense" - hard $ savings - vs "everyone's more productive!". They'll be "productive enough", relative to the cost savings of less (or no) office space.
Just my 2c, obviously.
Companies have touted open desk workspaces as some grand collaborative masterpiece for years now. It's a very big difference to advocate working from home because you also have to acknowledge that was a total farce.
For big companies it's harder to work fully remote. There are too many people and teams and dependencies. Twitter is not small but also not big.
But now that the industry is on the other side of that barrier, it seems to have no reason to go back.
-- Companies have gone virtual, they exist in slack, basecamp-type tools etc. In the 2000s it would sound unthinkable to put your corporate secrets in someone else's server. Today it's commonplace
-- Employees have gone virtual. Their CVs are in github, and the flaky silicon valley market has made them conscious of their personal image / website. They prefer a supermarket of opportunities rather than a long-term relationship
These things oiled up the gears for the transition, and covid gave it a big push.
The bigger issue for me is what will happen to the US tech market. Why would Twitter hire people in the US if they can hire much cheaper people from Europa and other locations. The US government restricts immigration for the same reasons. They might need to intervene with remote work as well.
Biannual "retreats" for companies that are fully remote sounds like a good idea, and I wonder if there is somewhere between "biannual retreats" and "butts in seats 5 days a week" that companies will meander towards.
Do you mean all boundary gateways should censor all information and knowledge, that are past without prior authorisation or a heavy tax, by default? Because that is how customs IRL work.
While companies can save money with smaller offices by allowing working from home the biggest factor imho is you open the potential employee pool to the whole country, if not the content or the world.
You are no longer restricted to the best person you can get within an hour or two commute of an office.
Find someone perfect for the role who lives 5 hours away? It doesn't matter anymore!
You no longer have to convince them to relocate (and put forward cash to cover the relocation as a condition of the contract).
You don't have to throw away the perfect candidate because a decade ago your company decided this is where you office should be but now you can't find local talent.
I hope when my son starts working (if he works in an office) he says to me "Dad, did you seriously have to go to the same place an hour away every day to sit at a desk and do the same work you can do on any computer with an internet connection? That's crazy!"
So much needless commuting could end if more companies embraced remote working. Not being forced to live within commuting distance of an office would mean more people can live further from "the office" easing pressure on housing, roads, public transport systems, save energy (fuel), reduce commuter accidents (vehicular and public transport), reduce pollution and give everyone more time in their day not mindlessly traveling from A to B back to A again every day.
A lot of us have small kids at home, so now we’re (mediocre) teachers on top of our work.
But most importantly, this is a national — no, a global — trauma. People might not realize it, but that trauma is there, and it will have to be addressed at some point. It’s another factor which makes it impossible to fairly evaluate the efficacy or desirability of working remotely.
Climate change is another reason work will likely have to change over the next decade. This pandemic has forced us to confront the types of changes we might need to make to adapt to a world of less flying, commuting, etc. Those changes seemed impossible, but we’ve been forced into a trial run. If we can get through it in these incredibly difficult circumstances, it gives us time to design a future of work that’s a bit more balanced. Perhaps a mix of remote and in-office. Perhaps an office that is less crowded. Perhaps a more distributed, regional world, where we can revitalize the lost cities in America rather than crowd into overpriced hubs.
Is it convenient? No. Will we lose certain bits of magic? Maybe. But we’ve ignored problems for a long time that we now need to confront.
It’s time to put on our design thinking hats. We’re the innovators — so let’s innovate the future. It doesn’t have to suck.
The temptation to slack off is ever present at home, I doubt will there ever be any technology that can solve this problem.
That said, it's fantastic to see Twitter do this. Especially given the commutes some are making in the bay area, this is a huge quality of life increase.
I had a good bit of December off and did WFH most of January/February because the scrum team I was working with was distributed. Our primary location .. would go into the office once or twice a week to sort/connect on the larger issues (and not plan to get my stuff done, but rather help others). I do miss that.
i.e. it's typically not a problem and can be very beneficial to the worker.
> "It's always been important to us to ensure that our team is able to enjoy a quality work/life balance," the Kickstarter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. "What we found was that by setting specific parameters around the number of days, there was no question about how much time was appropriate to take from work to engage in personal, creative, and family activities."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/at-kic...
> i.e. it's typically not a problem and can be very beneficial to the worker.
Many states require payout of vacation time accrued at time of separation. How does that work for unlimited vacation?
I've had unlimited policies before and I'm much happier having a specific number of days now that I use every year.
Banks often require that employees take vacation, typically around 2 weeks a year. An employee-focused software company should implement a similar policy of "required minimum vacation" [1].
The connections I have in Germany working in relatively "low-skill" fields are taking over 5 weeks a year of PTO. Even the most generous companies in the US are a joke by comparison to the most barebones companies in many EU nations. Without collective bargaining, we will always be far behind in benefits.
From my perspective, unlimited policies have a lot of upside on the financial front — they don't have to keep accrued PTO cash on the books. Of course, it has a benefit to workers, but only to those who take advantage of it and don't feel pressured by management or their peers to meet a certain number. It's been my experience so far that my peers at unlimited PTO companies take less time off, and that their "time off" is less valuable (meaning they are not completely logged out/tuned out of work) because it's coming from an infinite pool. At the end of the day, I think the balance of these policies shifts towards the financial side of the business rather than the employee's side.
[0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-rules-vac...
Invitations to "casual chats" over breakfast or dinner in the office cafeteria are IME quite common in the latter, especially if you're seeking access to senior leadership or flagged as someone whose opinion/buy-off is important to a project.
Even without an explicit invitation, if you're at the office already there's no real barrier to someone pulling you in to a project-related discussion. At that point you're effectively on the clock whether you intended/wanted to be or not.
It really comes down to the fact that commitments, decisions, and requests for assistance made across a cafeteria table are not considered any less binding, which means you can't just "relax and enjoy the free food" when it's provided at work by your employer.
(Conversely, if you're someone who tries to protect your personal time and set clear boundaries between work and non-work hours, you miss out on a lot of these ad-hoc meetings, which can result in a persistent lack of access and influence compared to your colleagues who spend 12+ hours a day on-site.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you were forced to go to a local restaurant or bar to talk shop with your company culture if the free food didn't exist.
Can you just say "i'm taking the next week off" to your manager and that's it ?
Prior to the Covid situation, we already had examples of successful remote-only companies (eg. GitLab). Now companies are using the circumstances to experiment with existing hypotheses of going remote-only or remote-mostly. I know my company was already wanting to experiment, and I think we would have done so even in the absence of the virus. Now we know it works.
Why pay rent when you can offload the cost to your engineers? Many already have a home office, and the cost of furnishing their home environment is negligible. Employees may even get a tax write off.
This may be the new norm for everyone.
I shudder to think about what's about to happen with the corporate real estate market, REIT stocks, etc. It's certainly yet another death knell for WeWork.
I also wonder if this will begin making cities with low cost of living and affordable real estate attractive. Who wants to work out of their tiny New York apartment every day when they can have a dedicated room for their office in another city?
Twitter will no longer need the large office building that it has.
It will no longer need to run the shuttles, both routes and frequency, that it does today.
Some employees may not want to live in SF anymore. Some may decide to move out of BA and even CA.
Now multiply with other companies that may do that...
There are solutions, once it's safe again. You can fly everyone to a common location once or twice a year, but that's not cheap. And so far at least for me, attempts to do team social video conferences have had at least mixed success. It does help with reconnecting socially, but video conferences are tiring in a way that in-person meetings are not.
The latter would seem insane if they are going to allow teams to be 100% remote. Why pay SF rates if you're getting a WFH employee?
I'm not saying all engineers outside SF are mediocre, but if you want the ones that aren't mediocre you have to pay them the same salaries the SF engineers are getting, so you're not saving any money.
If the average engineer in a non tech hub was just as competent as the average SF engineer at half the price, no one would bother paying through the nose to operate an SF office (but clearly many companies feel the compensation premium is worth the access to better talent).
The simpler explanation is simply that Bay Area companies have more money to spend. There is a lot of evidence to suggest this, including the fact that Bay Area headquartered companies pay more in their remote offices compared to other companies.
That just proves my point that companies pay a premium for Bay Area employees because that's where talented employees who can demand a premium congregate, and when they want to hire similarly talented employees in other areas they also have to pay a similar premium instead of downgrading their compensation packages to the local market rate.
1. They are willing to pay a huge premium for geographic proximity to their HQ
2. The average developer in Nowhere, OH is not as good as the average developer in the bay area. Not because Ohioans can't code, but because a large fraction of the ones who can have already moved to the bay area to make twice as much money. The ones that are as good make as much as the ones in the bay area, but most are not and drag the average down.
If 1 were the case, then companies would cut people's pay by half if they moved out of the bay area, or offer half as much money to people working in their satellite offices. But many companies don't, so clearly option 2 is more plausible than option 1.
The only thing you can definitely say about Bay Area developers vs others is that they’re paid more money - a result of there being companies with more money located there.
Finally, your entire premise is faulty as you perfectly correlate developer quality and compensation.
a lot of cities you have like 2 choices
One thing I predict happening if this becomes widespread is a reversion to the mean on salaries. I think the pay for people outside the Bay Area will go up and inside the Bay Area it will go down, as being in the Bay Area will no longer be nearly as essential.
This will have a nice second order effect on Bay Area real estate prices, bringing them closer in line to reality (but we will still have all the problems of massive undersupply, because it's just a nice place to live, tech employee or not).
My organization operates culturally at the pace of an insurance company. Despite the benefits of a semi-remote organization to my employer and the opportunity this pandemic provided for proof that productivity can remain high when working remotely, it will choose to have people on-site.
Now I'm searching for remote-only work.
[EDIT: Added "sick" in the last sentence of the first paragraph.]
Obviously, this can't apply for all workers, but for a big chunk of the working population, it can.
I just don't think we have the communication tools to support productive collaboration between people who hardly ever meet.
(I think what I may be saying is that while yes, there are Open Source projects that overcome these same sorts of problems, I don't think it's tools or process that are the reason they work. I suspect the psychology of volunteer work - performed and received - lets people overlook some pain points that they don't in a more mercenary setting)
How do Open Source projects achieve it?
How often does free software - and I mean no paid positions - compete with commercial software? OSS puts companies out of business (because it turns out people think some things should just be $0) but the projects that actually compete are a very small fraction, aren’t they?
We communicate extensively through video calls and Slack.
This isn’t about declining ad revenue and SF real estate costs, right?
If every other FAANG, in fact every other IT shop in the US or Europe did the same the wage bill would still crater in comaprison to hiring exclusively from the valley.
I wonder how they're thinking about setting comp ($400k will go a long way in Kansas, but also in Thailand).
And how are they going to manage the tax implications?
Sometimes, I just wanna wake up early, slam out my work, and have the rest of the afternoon to myself. I've done it many times over the 7 years of WFH. Enforcing everyone to be in an office for 8 hours is just silly. It should always be about how much work you get done.
Personally cutting out ~90 minutes of daily commuting has been fantastic. The lack of childcare .. not so much, but when that inevitably resolves I don't see myself going back 5 days a week in the office.
[0] http://www.crenews.com/general_news/general/barclays-lent-%2...
Virtual machines that live in the cloud. Apple DEP. Microsoft InTune. All of these tools allow companies to drop ship computers to employees from a warehouse or reseller to the employees doorstep. Turn it on and the IT tools take over and set the machine up.
I’ll predict this announcement is step 1 in realignment of staff sizing. Perhaps Disney can buy the FB building and turn it into something productive.
I've also seen the takes re: social distancing requiring larger office space, but why wouldn't companies just send their employees in in smaller, rotating groups?
This move also allows employees to choose locations that better suit their politics. I've always found it highly dangerous to have large tech platforms, which are defacto digital public squares (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Medium, etc.), aggregate in just one or two cities that all share the same culture and politics. This is a risk especially because these platforms have increasingly taken steps to ramp up their censorship. If diversity actually matters to these companies, the diversity of thought introduced by decentralized geographic distribution will be a benefit to society.
It’s odd therefore to see this announcement come via Buzzfeed.
But I can totally understand those who have young children who can distract them and hinder productivity.
While I 100% support it, I'm also on the far side of introverted. I would have thought that half or more would hate not having their social interactions daily.
Will twitter be opening to hiring from other states and countries?
Firstly, home is not an effective place of work. I come home mostly to be with my family and not take my problems from work to home.. Aren't there many studies done on the same, why work shouldn't be brought to home and stuff..
Secondly, if the employer provides all the required setup (monitors, webcams, speakers) and support for electricity backups and stuff then I might be willing. The point about electricity backup is very true especially for developing countries.
Thirdly, I'm actually working more (double time) compared to only working 8 hours. This also has to do with my time management but people are actually lazy at home and very hard to be dependent on them..
This is a huge generalization, and is not true for many people. For me, the office is not an effective place to work.
We should give the option for people that work effectively at home. I've worked at two fully remote companies, and our work output is equivalent or better than any in office job I've had, and I'm much happier now that I don't have to deal with the open office bullshit.
I agree it doesn't work for everyone, but it certainly can be very effective for the right people.
What you mention in your second argument is interesting, I always forget about that one. In most of Europe and most of North-America I would assume this not to be an issue.
Seriously, working from home is a great privilege for some and a tremendous burden for others. It is wonderful that companies are realizing that there are tremendous benefits to giving employees freedom and choices.
One size (or approach) does not fit all.
We're following suit, just haven't announced officially.
This won't be good for me. Competition with regions is going to be tough.
Easy answer: No they don't. Foreigners do not funge for Americans for myriad reasons (cultural). Offshoring won't replace USA teams just like it hasn't for the past several decades.
Hopefully other companies will follow.
Having non-essential spaces for people is complete unnecessary — and it: contributes in less health eating habits, traffic, cars, HVAC related energy costs, wasted time commuting, rising real estate costs, economic lost during pandemics due to downtime, etc.
Same principle holds true for non-essential travel.
Same thing.
Same productive outcome.
Hence, working from the office or working from home is ... the ...same ... gawd ... damn ... thing.
Well done to Twitter for growing a set.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ~ Inigo Montoya
Love it how the next 10 years will turn out.
Isn't living at work and working at home two sides of the same coin? Is the merging of work and home really something we should aspire to? One of the basis of a healthy work/life balance is the separation of work and home.
In an era of mass surveillance and privacy loss, the home is the last private space we have. Is it wise to let work invade that space? Just things to think about.